CAR_Public/180606.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Wednesday, June 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 113



                            Headlines


ADVANTA SEEDS: Class Action Over Shattercane Weed Can Proceed
ALERE INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Asacol(R) Litigation Underway
ALLERGAN PLC: Aug. 24 Final Fairness Hearing in Botox(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation

ALLERGAN PLC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Namenda(R) Underway
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Multiple Suits over Restasis(R) Drug
ALLERGAN PLC: Accord in Zymar/Zymaxid Suit Has Initial Approval
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal Filed in Mass. Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal Filed in Wash. Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suit

ALLERGAN PLC: Named as Defendant in Warner Chilcott Sales Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Seeks to Dismiss Drug Pricing & ERISA Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement Reached in TCPA Class Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Calif. Opioid Drug Abuse Suit on June 18
ALLERGAN PLC: Class Certification Bid in TRT Suit Still Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Zeltiq Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Zeltiq Advertising Suit Pending
ALPHA CARTING: "De Leon" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
AMERICAN HEART: Louisiana Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Tyberg" Suit in E.D. New York

AMERIFINANCIAL: Faces "Hylton" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
AMP LTD: Backed by IMF Bentham, Phi Finney Launches Class Action
AMP LTD: To Vigorously Defend 2 Shareholder Class Actions
AMP LTD: Suits to Pile Up Amid Royal Commission Revelations
AMP LTD: Expects Higher Remediation Costs Following Class Actions

AMP LTD: Slater and Gordon Launches Class Action Investigation
AMP LTD: Quinn Emanuel Files Shareholder Class Action
ANGLO AMERICAN: Trust Set Up for Silicosis Compensation
APAPOSH INC: Olsen Files Suit in S.D. New York
ARITAUM BEAUTY: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York

ART OF SHAVING: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
AUSTRALIA: Ex-PM Called to Give Evidence in Pink Batts Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Sydney Light Rail Project
BANK OF AMERICA: DACA Recipient Files Job Discrimination Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in California Over "Sham Appraisals"

BARNES & NOBLE: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
BAY AREA REGIONAL: Ex-Employees Files Suit Over Abrupt Closure
BIG HEART: Suits Over Contaminated Dog Food Consolidated
BREAD AND CHOCOLATE: "Gonzales" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
CANADA: Class Action v. Armed Forces Over Alleged Racism Pending

CANADA: Allegedly Used Indigenous People for Medical Experiments
CANADA: '60s Scoops CA Lawsuit Hearings Start in Saskatoon
CENTER FOR GOODS: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Pet Food Contains Harmful Metals, Suit Says
CLEAN HARBORS: "Metro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Campagna" Suit in E.D. New York
CNA FINANCIAL: Sued Over Bait-and-Switch Premium Increases
CPE ROACHBUSTERS: Denied Breaks, OT Pay, "Fernandez" Suit Says
CREDITONE LLC: Martin Files Suit Over Collection Letter
DAVENPORT TURNBLAD: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York

DEJAVU INC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
DESOLEIL MANAGEMENT: "Jaen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
DISH NETWORK: Do Not Call Class Action Settlement Payout Underway
DIVURGENT LLC: Hatzey Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Goldstein" Suit in E.D. New York

EQUINOX COLLECTION: Faces "Reyes" Suit in N.D. Texas
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Suit
ESRT OBSERVATORY: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
EVERGREEN PRESBYTERIAN: "Robinson" Claims Unpaid Overtime Premium
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Collection of Text, Call Logs

FCA RESTAURANT: "Mesias" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
FLEX LTD: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
FLOWERS FOODS: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
FLUSHING BANK: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
FRED A. COOK: Faces "Brininger" Suit in S.D. New York

FRITO-LAY INC: Settles Suit Over Improper Background Checks
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Mills Seeks Wages for Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
GILEAD SCIENCES: California HIV Patients File Class Action
GOMEZ DRYWALL: "Murillo" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GGP INC: Lowinger Files Suit Over Sale to Brookfield

HCC MEDICAL: Faces "Bryant" Class Suit in Indiana
HEALTH INSURANCE: June 15 Initial Mediation in "Hicks" Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway
HYATT HOTELS: Faces Illinois Antitrust Class Action
IDAHO: Suit Targets Public School Fees Statewide

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settles Acne Drug Class Action for $20MM
INNERWORKINGS INC: July 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
JACKSONVILLE BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
KEMET CORP: Five River Sues Over Sherman Act Breach
LAMPS PLUS: Supreme Court to Decide on Arbitration Issue

LANCASTER GENERAL: Faces St. Luke's Hospital Suit in E.D. Penn.
LG&E & KU: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing
LIVE NATION: Faces "Poser" Class Action in California
LIVE NATION: Klein Law Firm Files Shareholder Class Action
LOBLAWS: $25 Gift Card Offer Ends, Class Actions Ongoing

MARIO BATALI: Settles Staffers' Wage Violation Class Action
MDL 2741: "Pfleigier" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal
MEMPHIS, TN: Faces Lawsuit on Untested Rape Kits
MERIWETHER COUNTY: Faces "Poole" Suit in N.D. Georgia
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Mason" Suit in S.D. California

NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA: Paquette Gadler Files Class Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in "Ubaldi" Wins Final Court Approval
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Lord Abbett Suit Underway
NAVIENT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Pope" Complaint
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Seeks Approval of TCPA Class Action Settlement

NRG YIELD: Oct. 30 Hearing Set in "Braun" Suit
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Florida Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Court Dismisses Retirement System's Class Claims
OVASCIENCE INC: Bid to Consolidate Class Suits Pending
PBF ENERGY: "Goldstein" Class Action Still Ongoing

PFIZER CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Birth Control Pills
PHH CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
PHOENIX SUTTON: Construction Workers to Recover Unpaid Overtime
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: "Luna" Sues Over Engine Fire Hazzard
POKERSTARS: May Face Class Action Lawsuit, Lawyer Says

PROVIDENCE, RI: Settlement Reached in Speed Camera Lawsuit
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action in Chicago Court
REALOGY GROUP: Aug. 16 Final Approval Hearing on "Dodge" Accord
RED HAT INC: "Fleming" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RIPPLE LABS: Johson Fistel Law Firm Investigates Potential Claims

RKJ INC: Kamin Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAKS INC: Faces "Joseph" Suit in S.D. New York
SELECT COMFORT: Greenbaum Rowe Discusses Class Action Ruling
SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Lawyer Seeks Approval of EMF Class Action
SPIRIT AERO: Delaware High Court to Hear Arguments on June 13

SPROUTS FARMERS: Discovery Ongoing in Arizona Shareholders' Suit
SURA USA INC: "Kook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TARGET CORP: Baby Wipes Part of Class-Action Settlement
TD AMERITRADE: Krukever Files Suit in Fla., Seeks Damages
TESARO INC: Crawley Appointed as Lead Plaintiff

THOMAS PINK: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: "Gordon" Class Action Concluded
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Continues to Defend Public Employees' Suit
TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC: Faces "Smith" Suit in South Carolina
TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.

U.S. OLYMPIC: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action in Colorado
UNITED NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: ICE Violates Immigrants' Rights, Judge Rules
UNITED STATES: CBP Faces Class Action Over Civil Forfeiture
UNITED STATES: Heninger Garrison Sues USPTO Over AIA

UNITED STATES: "Johnson" Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN: 2MM Diesel Car Owners Could Join Suit in Germany
WELLS FARGO: Judge Approves $97.3MM Settlement in Employee Suit
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Appeal in Unitholder Litigation Underway
WILLIAMS RUSH: Faces "Tatum" Suit in N.D. Texas

WPX ENERGY: Suit over Royalty Interests Still Ongoing

* Germany's Cabinet Approves Plan to Allow Consumer Class Action





                            *********


ADVANTA SEEDS: Class Action Over Shattercane Weed Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregor Heard, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that
the class action against Advanta Seeds by sorghum farmers who
claim to have bought seed contaminated with the noxious weed
Shattercane will continue.

The case against Advanta, officially brought forward by
Mallonland Pty Ltd and ME & JL Nitschke Pty Ltd, came before the
Supreme Court of Queensland on April 18 where it was ruled that
the case will go forward.

Creevey Russell Lawyers' principal Dan Creevey, who is
representing the growers, said the matter will now proceed on a
timetable to hearing if it is not resolved before then between
the parties.

Mr Creevey said his firm was representing growers who purchased
MR43 Elite sorghum seed anytime between 2010 and 2014 and have
allegedly suffered a Shattercane infestation on their land due to
the use of that seed.

Shattercane is a weed species closely related to sorghum and
other noxious grass weed species such as Johnson grass.

It is alleged bags of the MR43 Elite sorghum sold to farmers were
contaminated with shattercane.

Advanta (formerly known as Pacific Seeds) denies the claim and
has been ordered by the Judge to provide an amended defence by 24
May 2018 at which time the full details of its response to the
allegations will be known.

Spokesperson for Advanta Seeds Nick Gardner said the company
would be fighting the allegations, which he stressed had not been
proven yet.

"Given customer relationships are integral to the company's
reputation, Advanta Seeds is meticulous in protecting those
relationships through the strictest of standards and protocols,"
Mr Gardner said.

"Advanta Seeds cannot speculate on the evidence to be presented
as part of the court action, nor an outcome, but is confident its
stance will be vindicated."

The case will decide the issue of liability for the sale of the
seed and, if Advanta is liable, the damages suffered by the
plaintiffs and group members.

The action was commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland, but
covers sorghum growers in Queensland and New South Wales.

The plaintiffs' case is that, when present in a crop of sorghum,
Shattercane competes strongly with the planted sorghum as it has
high fertility and results in a reduced yield.

Once present on the land, it can spread vigorously, quickly
infesting and overrunning the land.

Due to its close relationship to sorghum it is very difficult to
eradicate during a sorghum phase.

Around 50 farmers are believed to be involved in the class
action. [GN]


ALERE INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Yeary, Esq., of Reed Smith, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that in Andre v. Alere, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69045, *3
(S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2018), putative class representatives allege
that defendants' marketing of its INRatio products was deceptive
and misleading and that defendants are therefore liable under
various state's consumer protection laws.  The INRatio products
are handheld devices used to monitor blood clotting time in
people taking warfarin.  Class certification was originally
denied back in December as to both a nationwide class and as to
alleged state-specific sub-classes. Id. at *4-5. Plaintiffs
sought reconsideration as to the six sub-class states (Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania).  They
allege that based on new facts they can satisfy Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement as to the
learned intermediary doctrine, statute of limitations, and
damages. The court disagreed.

For a class to be certified, Rule 23(b)(3) requires that "the
question of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members."  And the
court's analysis is a "rigorous" one that can extend beyond the
pleadings. Id. at *6.

Plaintiffs, for the first time in their reply brief, argued that
the learned intermediary doctrine did not apply to their claims
for several reasons.  First, they alleged it does not apply
because they are alleging a design defect claim not a failure to
warn claim.  But, that argument didn't align with the allegations
of their complaint which were about omissions and representations
-- i.e. failure to warn. Id. at *14. Nor did plaintiffs' cite any
authority for learned intermediary not applying to design defect
claims. Id.  Next plaintiff argued that the learned intermediary
doctrine doesn't apply where only economic injuries are sought.
But again, they offered no legal support for their contention.
Id.  Finally, plaintiffs argued that because the INRatio product
is user-operated, the doctrine doesn't apply.  On this point, it
appears plaintiffs and defendants submitted competing examples of
how prescribed medical devices that involve some patient
operation are treated and concluded plaintiff's argument was not
persuasive. Id. at *15.  Regardless of whether the patient has to
be the one to use the device daily, it still had to be prescribed
by his/her physician warranting application of the learned
intermediary doctrine.

So, since the learned intermediary doctrine is applicable,
Plaintiffs had to argue that it is subject to "common proof."
They did this by alleging that defendants "failed to warn any
physicians." Id. at *7-8 (emphasis added).  But, as defendants
argued, the inadequacy of the warning is only part of the
equation.  Plaintiffs must also show that "the inadequate or lack
of warnings were the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries."
Id. at *8.  The court cites at least one case from each of the
six states at issue to support the proximate cause arm of the
learned intermediary rule. Id. at *10-11.  What all of those
cases have in common is the conclusion that "proximate cause
determination will ultimately lead to individual inquiries into
each doctor's experience with the product." Id. at *12.
Inquiries such as the extent of the physician's knowledge of the
risks and side effects and the source of that knowledge; and
whether the physician stands by his/her prescribing decision; and
the physician's individualized medical decision based both on
his/her knowledge of the product and of the patient. Id. at
*12-13.  While warning adequacy might be subject to common proof,
individuality predominates on the issue of specific, proximate
causation.  Also, plaintiffs couldn't point to a single case
where class certification was granted involving the learned
intermediary doctrine.

Class certification was also denied due to the lack of
predominance as to damages and the statute of limitations.
Again, individuality can't be ignored.

On damages, plaintiffs put forth a full-refund model under
California law and argued that it satisfied predominance and that
a state-by-state analysis was not necessary. Id. at *16-17. The
court, however, found that the cases plaintiffs relied on were
not that black and white. See id. at *17-19 (analyzing
plaintiff's cases).  It was not enough to summarily conclude that
predominance was satisfied as to all because it was satisfied as
to some.  The required "rigorous analysis" is not satisfied by
merely arguing that courts in some of the six states allow for a
full refund model.  Plaintiffs have failed to specifically
demonstrate that each of the six sub-class states' consumer
protection statute and claims for implied breach of warranty in
four sub-class states are connected to their theory of damages or
that these state law causes of action damages provide for a full
refund recovery.

Id. at *21. Plaintiffs had to show sameness among the six states,
which it failed to do.

As to statute of limitations, plaintiffs argued that because each
of the six states recognizes equitable tolling and/or the
discovery rule, "then necessarily common proof will prevail over
individualized questions" because no plaintiff knew until the
product was recalled that the product was defective. Id. at
*22-23.  But plaintiffs ignore that both equitable tolling and
the discovery rule require consideration of whether the plaintiff
acted with due diligence -- an individualized inquiry. Id. at
*23. The court gives an example from the complaint of one of the
putative class representative's experiences with the device that
should have alerted him to an issue before recall and points out
that plaintiffs have not addressed how equitable tolling or the
discovery rule would apply in that situation. Id. at *24.  Since
it cannot be determined if the statute would be tolled for all
plaintiffs from the date of recall, individual issues predominate
over common ones.

In "The Giver" sameness is a metaphor for the lack of truth and
diversity.  The destroyer of creativity, free will, joy,
happiness, and love.  The things that make life worth living.  In
DDL world individuality may not be the meaning of life, but it's
enough to ward off class actions which certainly makes us happy.
[GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal in Asacol(R) Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the Asacol(R) Litigation remains pending, Allergan
plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018.

Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and
three more on September 21, 2015, in federal court in
Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect
purchasers. Complaints were also filed on behalf of a putative
class of direct purchasers of Asacol(R) making similar
allegations to the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.  Those matters have been consolidated with the
indirect purchaser cases.

In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices
for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a
result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or
delaying generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's
older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust
laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive
relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
complaint which the court granted in part, dismissing the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on purported reverse
payments and dismissing several of indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
claims based on state laws. The Company filed an answer to the
indirect purchasers' second amended complaint on October 4, 2016.
On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' consolidated complaint. The court granted this
motion in part.

The Company has since settled the claims brought by the direct
purchaser plaintiffs. The Company filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
claims which the court denied on November 9, 2017. The court also
granted the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Trial was set to being on January 22, 2018.

However, on January 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit issued an order granting the Company's motion under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) to appeal the district court's decision to
certify the proposed class. The appellate court thereafter issued
a decision staying the trial in the district court. The appeal
was fully briefed on March 26, 2018. Oral argument on the appeal
is scheduled for May 8, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Aug. 24 Final Fairness Hearing in Botox(R) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the court in the Botox(R) Litigation set a
final fairness hearing for August 24, 2018.

A class action complaint was filed in federal court in California
on February 24, 2015, and amended May 29, 2015, alleging unlawful
market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation
of 15 U.S.C. Section 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance
of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2 of the Sherman Act, violations of
California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus.
and Prof. Code, and violations of California's unfair competition
law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. In the
complaint, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble
damages.

On November 30, 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement.
On March 8, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and set a final
fairness hearing for August 24, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that discovery is ongoing in Loestrin(R) 24
Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed on behalf
of putative classes of end-payors in the federal district court
against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates alleging that
Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit settlements with Watson
Laboratories and Lupin related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe were
unlawful.

The complaints generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly
delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange
for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The
complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and
damages. Additional complaints making the same types of
allegations have been filed by different plaintiffs, including a
class of direct payors and by direct purchasers in their
individual capacities.

All the cases have been consolidated in the federal court for the
District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint though the
dismissal was later vacated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals
and the case was remanded to the district court. The district
court denied the defendants' second motion to dismiss. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid for Summary Judgment in Namenda(R) Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company has filed a motion for summary
judgment in the Namenda(R) Litigation, which is currently before
the court.

In September 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of
the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic
competition to Forest's immediate-release product Namenda(R) in
violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed
other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for
Namenda(R) XR.

The district court granted the states motion for a preliminary
injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit. Forest and the New York Attorney General
reached a settlement on November 24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers in the federal district court in New
York. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed on
behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The
class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by
the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and
generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

The court denied Forest's and its co-defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaints. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion for
summary judgment on two of the counts of their complaint. The
Court granted plaintiffs' motion in part as to the collateral
estoppel effect on a prior finding of anti-competitive conduct,
and denied the motions on whether the Company's obtaining
pediatric exclusivity was anti-competitive conduct. The Company
has filed a motion for summary judgment which is currently before
the court.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces Multiple Suits over Restasis(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend against the
Restasis(R) Class Action Litigation.

Between November 7, 2017, and February 26, 2018, seventeen
putative class actions were filed in federal district courts
against Allergan alleging that the company unlawfully harmed
competition by engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of
generic versions of Restasis(R).

Twelve of the complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes
of end-payors, and five were filed on behalf of putative classes
of direct purchasers. One direct purchaser complaint and two end-
payor complaints were later voluntarily dismissed. The complaints
challenge Allergan's conduct in prosecuting and obtaining patents
covering Restasis(R), listing those patents in the FDA's Orange
Book, asserting those patents against potential generic
competitors in patent-infringement litigation, filing citizens
petitions with the FDA concerning generic companies' drug
applications for generic Restasis(R), and transferring patents to
the sovereign Native American Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.  Both the
end-payors and the direct purchasers allege that these actions
violated federal antitrust laws, and the end-payors further
allege violations of state antitrust and consumer-protection laws
and unjust enrichment.

All plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive
relief.  After a hearing on January 25, 2018, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred all related
Restasis(R) cases to the federal court for the Eastern District
of New York. After the JPML issued the transfer order, another
plaintiff asserting the same allegations filed suit on behalf of
a putative class of end-payors. Plaintiffs are to file
consolidated amended complaints by April 4, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Accord in Zymar/Zymaxid Suit Has Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the court has granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement in Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R)
Litigation.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. alleging monopolization in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to
monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for
gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan,
Inc.'s ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and
ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble
damages and disgorgement of profits. On April 26, 2017, this
matter was dismissed.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On October 18, 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement.
On February 27, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal Filed in Mass. Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that plaintiff is taking an appeal from the
summary judgment order and the order denying class certification
in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions in the federal district
court in Massachusetts.

Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in
multiple federal court actions relating to the promotion of
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which were consolidated in the
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding in the federal district court
in Massachusetts. On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in
federal court in Minnesota which sought to certify a nationwide
class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use.

The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R). A motion for class certification was filed in
February 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016. On February 16, 2018,
the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company
dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal of the summary judgment order and the order denying class
certification.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal Filed in Wash. Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that plaintiff is taking an appeal from the
summary judgment order and the order denying class certification
in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions in the federal district
court in Washington.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts
consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric
use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute,
alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and
paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of
Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).  On March 3, 2017, plaintiffs in this
action filed a motion for class certification, which motion was
denied by the court. On September 15, 2017, Forest filed a motion
for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint which was
granted in full on January 30, 2018. On February 16, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the summary judgment order
and the order denying class certification.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Named as Defendant in Warner Chilcott Sales Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company and certain of its subsidiaries
have been tagged as defendants in a class action complaint
related to Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices.

On February 13, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Warner Chilcott and certain of its affiliates in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint
asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, violations of
number of state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud,
and unjust enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of
certain products.

The complaint seeks to certify a nationwide class of private
payer entities, or their assignees, that paid Medicare benefits
on behalf of their beneficiaries.

On April 9, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
adding certain other Allergan subsidiaries as defendants

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Seeks to Dismiss Drug Pricing & ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss in
the Generic Drug Pricing Securities and ERISA Litigation.

On November 4, 2016, a class action was filed by a putative class
of Allergan shareholders in federal court in California against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers
alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former
officers made materially false and misleading statements.

Additional similar class action complaints and one complaint by
an individual defendant have been filed and these cases have been
consolidated in the federal district court in New Jersey. The
complaints allege generally that between February 2014 and
November 2016, Allergan and certain of its officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's internal controls over its financial reporting and
failed to disclose that its Actavis generics unit had engaged in
illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry
peers. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages.

After the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on November 28, 2017. The
Company motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, filed on
January 22, 2018, is still pending. A complaint was filed in
California state court, premised on the same underlying
allegations, by an individual opt-out plaintiff on February 2,
2018. Two complaints were filed, one in the federal district
court in California and one in the federal district court in New
Jersey, that are premised on the same alleged underlying conduct
that is at issue in the securities litigation but that assert
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").  These complaints also have been consolidated in the
district court in New Jersey.

The ERISA complaints assert claims on behalf of a putative class
of individuals who participated in the Company's retirement plans
and seek an unspecified amount of damages and other injunctive
relief.  On October 23, 2017, the ERISA litigation Plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated complaint which the Company moved
to dismiss on February 2, 2018.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Agreement Reached in TCPA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties have reached an agreement to
settle a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation.

In October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named
as defendants in a putative class action in federal court in
Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by
sending unsolicited facsimiles and facsimiles with inadequate
opt-out notices. The case was stayed pending the administrative
proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate
petition Forest filed. A similar lawsuit was filed in Missouri
state court against Warner Chilcott Corporation which Warner
Chilcott removed to the federal district court. In the wake of
the Court of Appeals decision on the Petition discussed below,
the parties reached an agreement to settle these actions.

In a related matter, on June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition
for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find
that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or
substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not
violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly
promulgated under the TCPA.

On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC
Petition granting Forest and several other petitioners a
retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all
faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs
appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia and on March 31, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a
decision which held that the FCC regulation at issue was not
properly promulgated under the TCPA. Plaintiffs' petition for
certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Trial in Calif. Opioid Drug Abuse Suit on June 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the court has set a trial date of June 18,
2019, in the California class action suits related to
Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Litigation.

The Company has been named as a defendant in approximately 470
matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid
pain relievers and additional suits may be filed.

On May 21, 2014, the California counties Santa Clara and Orange
filed a lawsuit in California state court on behalf of the State
of California against several pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Plaintiffs named Actavis plc (now known as Allergan plc) in the
suit. The California complaint alleges that the manufacturer
defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their
products in violation of state laws. On July 6, 2017, Santa Clara
and Orange Counties filed a fourth amended complaint. On March
23, 2018, the court set a trial date of June 18, 2019.

On June 2, 2014, the City of Chicago also filed a complaint in
Illinois state court against the same set of defendants,
including Actavis plc, that were sued in the California Action.
Co-defendants in the action removed the matter to the federal
court in Illinois. The Chicago complaint contains similar
allegations as the California complaint and also seeks
unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief.

On December 15, 2015, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in
Mississippi state court against several pharmaceutical
manufacturers. The Mississippi action parallels the allegations
in the California and Chicago matters and seeks monetary and
equitable relief. In March and April 2016, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss, stay, and transfer venue in the Mississippi
action. On February 13, 2017, the defendants' motion to transfer
venue was denied. On March 6, 2017, the defendants filed a
petition for permission to appeal interlocutory order denying
defendants' motion to transfer venue with the Mississippi Supreme
Court.

On May 31, 2017, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state
court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Ohio
action parallels the allegations in the Chicago matter and seeks
monetary and equitable relief.

Since the filing of the complaint by the State of Ohio,
additional cases have been filed, including cases filed by the
States of Oklahoma and New Mexico, but mainly by political
subdivisions of states (ie., counties and municipalities) in
state and federal courts across the country.

In addition, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on
behalf of Arkansas residents who were prescribed an opioid
product or were prescribed an opioid product and were treated for
an overdose or addiction against several pharmaceutical
manufacturers. The claims in the additional cases largely
parallel the claims in the California, Chicago, Mississippi and
Ohio matters.

The Company is aware that other states and political subdivisions
are filing comparable actions against, among others,
manufacturers and parties that promoted prescription opioid pain
relievers.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Certification Bid in TRT Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification
in the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action, remains
pending.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative
class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party
payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the
Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated
various laws including the federal RICO statute and state
consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and
marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy
pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the Company's
Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT Products
Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability
matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies.
Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including
injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or
disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an
unspecified amount. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint and in its ruling the court dismissed
all claims against the Company except plaintiff's RICO conspiracy
claim. Discovery in this matter is ongoing.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification on November 6, 2017. On March 5,
2018, Defendants filed papers in opposition to Plaintiffs' class
certification motion.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Zeltiq Shareholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in the Zeltiq Shareholder
Litigation have reached an agreement to settle the dispute and
the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their complaints.

On March 14, 2017, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. ("Zeltiq") and various
directors as well as Allergan entities in Delaware federal court.
A similar complaint was filed in California federal court, though
Allergan was not named in the California matter.

Plaintiffs allege that the proxy statement filed in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc.
misrepresented material information that prevented Zeltiq's
shareholders from making a fully informed decision on the
proposed sale to Allergan, including failure to disclose GAAP
reconciliation of Zeltiq's non-GAAP projections. Zeltiq filed an
amendment to its Definitive Proxy Statement on April 11, 2017,
which includes supplemental disclosures that address plaintiffs'
claims. The parties reached an agreement to settle this dispute
and plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaints.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Zeltiq Advertising Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that Zeltiq has filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Zeltiq in state court in California alleging that Zeltiq
misled customers regarding the promotion of its CoolSculpting
product and the product's premarket notification clearance
status. On May 30, 2017, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

On July 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In
August 2017, Zeltiq filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics,
biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US
General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was
formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan
plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALPHA CARTING: "De Leon" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned Edwin De Leon, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed
by Alpha Carting & Contracting, Plaintiff v. Alpha Carting &
Contracting Services, Inc. and Jody Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 611182/2017 was brought before the New York
Supreme Court on May 22, 2018.

Alpha Carting & Contracting Service Inc. is in the special trade
contractors business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   VIRGINIA & AMBINDER,LLP
   40 BROAD STREET,7TH FLOOR
   NEW YORK, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:

   SINNREICH & KOSAKOFF LLP
   267 Carleton Ave # 301
   Central Islip, NY 11722, USA
   Tel: (631) 650-1200


AMERICAN HEART: Louisiana Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Nikdel, Esq. -- susan.nikdel@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
wrote that in Reese v. Anthem Inc., et al., the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed a
plaintiff's TCPA class action suit against the American Heart
Association ("AHA"), Anthem Foundation, Inc., and Anthem, Inc.
This decision should breathe some life into the American Heart
Association and other health care companies facing similar TCPA
claims, as the Court in Reese recognized that there are limits to
the TCPA's expansive reach.

Plaintiff Reese filed a putative class action arguing that the
defendants violated the TCPA by sending her unwanted text
messages following her attendance at a CPR training course.
Plaintiff attended a free CPR class through the AHA and provided
her cell phone number to receive informational texts related to
the program.  Plaintiff later received more than 20 text messages
not only from the AHA but from its branding partners as well.
Although most of the messages contained health-related
information, Plaintiff argued that defendants were involved in an
"advertising scheme" and pointed to one specific message that
offered "for-pay" CPR training classes.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
consent Plaintiff had provided to the AHA permitted defendants to
send such messages.  The Court granted defendants motion to
dismiss and found that defendants had not violated the TCPA
because Plaintiff expressly consented to receive text messages
from defendants when she provided her cell phone number at the
CPR training course.  Many courts have held that voluntarily
providing one's cell phone number constitutes prior express
consent.  Here, the Court focused on whether the nature of text
messages fell within the scope of consent Plaintiff had provided.
The Court found that Plaintiff had provided consent to receive
texts regarding healthy living and all the subsequent texts were
"precisely what she received."

Further, the Court noted that the text messages did not fall
under the category of advertisement or telemarketing because the
messages did not promote the purchasing of any specific goods or
services.  The messages merely provided the opportunity to seek
out further information regarding health care services and
therefore were purely informational.  The Court even addressed
the text message that offered "for-pay" CPR training classes and
found that the message was simply an invitation to seek further
information regarding the classes and therefore did not qualify
as an advertisement.  The Court concluded by stating that "common
sense" tells us that providing information on health related
courses such as CPR is "undoubtedly informational."  As such, the
Court held that defendants' conduct did not violate the TCPA.

The Court's opinion is not only a life-saver for the American
Heart Association, but also provides some clarity for other
health care companies and non-profit organizations facing
potential TCPA liability. [GN]


AMERICAN HONDA: Faces "Tyberg" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda
Finance Corporation. The case is styled as Faigy Tyberg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. American Honda Finance Corporation, Experian
Information Solutions, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-03116 (E.D. N.Y., May 25, 2018).

American Honda Finance Corporation provides various forms of
financing to purchasers and lessees, and authorized independent
dealers of Honda and Acura products in the United States and
Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMERIFINANCIAL: Faces "Hylton" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerifinancial
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Ionie Hylton, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Amerifinancial Solutions, LLC doing business as: AFS, AFS and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02206-
GEKP (E.D. Penn., May 25, 2018).

Amerifinancial Solutions, LLC is a privately held company in Boca
Raton, FL and is a Single Location business. Categorized under
Credit and Debt Counseling Services. It was established in 2007
and incorporated in NC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   ARKADY ERIC RAYZ, Esq.
   KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
   1051 COUNTY LINE ROAD, SUITE A
   HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006
   Tel: (215) 364-5030
   Fax: (215) 364-5029
   Email: erayz@kalraylaw.com


AMP LTD: Backed by IMF Bentham, Phi Finney Launches Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Freund, writing for Litigation Finance Journal, reports that
angry shareholders have launched a class action against AMP
Limited in the Federal Court of Australia seeking damages for
alleged disclosure contraventions. The claimants are represented
by leading class action firm, Phi Finney McDonald, with funding
from Australia's largest litigation funder IMF Bentham Limited
(ASX:IMF).

Phi Finney McDonald Director, Tim Finney, said that the action
would seek compensation for investors who acquired AMP shares
between 6 May 2013 and 13 April 2018 (inclusive) (the Claim
Period).

The class action follows the explosive information revealed
during the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking,
Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

"AMP has admitted that it deliberately and systematically charged
consumers fees for services that were not provided. It then
misled the corporate regulator, by describing its practices as
due to an administrative error," Mr Finney said. "AMP has failed
its clients. It has badly let down its many loyal shareholders,
who had the right to expect more from one of Australia's largest
and most reputable financial services companies."

AMP has apologised for its conduct in the wake of the Royal
Commission's revelations. Its CEO, Chairman, Group General
Counsel, and three non-executive directors have all left the
company.

"The conduct which AMP has admitted to was disgraceful. The fact
that Counsel Assisting has referred to criminal charges says it
all. The class action alleges that AMP was aware of these
practices for many years, that its conduct gave rise to
significant legal and regulatory risk, and that AMP then misled
the regulator. Shareholders allege that this was material
information that AMP withheld from the market, and claim
compensation for the losses that they have suffered as a result."
Said Tim Finney.

IMF Bentham Investment Manager, Ewen McNee said, "As Australia's
leading litigation funder, IMF is pleased to provide AMP
shareholders with an avenue to seek compensation for their
losses, and to hold the company to account for its conduct."

AMP shareholders are encouraged to register for the action at
www.imf.com/amp.

Background

The Financial Services Royal Commission has exposed AMP's long-
running practice of charging ongoing services fees:

1.without providing any relevant service or advice to customers;
and/or
2.in circumstances where AMP lacked any capacity to provide any
relevant service or advice to customers.

These fees breached the Corporations Act (Act), contracts with
customers, and the conditions of applicable Australian Financial
Services Licences (AFSLs). The Royal Commission has heard that
senior management personnel at AMP were aware of these practices
and were aware that they contravened the Act and the conditions
of applicable AFSLs.

AMP misled ASIC about these fees, by mischaracterising them as
'administrative errors'. In practice, the fees were charged to
customers by deliberate AMP policy.

In the weeks since these matters were uncovered by the Royal
Commission:

AMP's share price has fallen from $4.78 (at the close on 13 April
2018) to $4.02 (at the close on 27 April 2018), a fall of 16%;

the Chief Executive Officer, Craig Meller, has resigned;
the Chairperson, Catherine Brenner, has stepped down from her
role;

three other non-executive directors have left the board; and

the General Counsel, Brian Salter has left the company.

Counsel assisting the Royal Commission has suggested there may be
more findings of misconduct by AMP, including criminal misconduct
by knowingly misleading ASIC.

Phi Finney McDonald is one of Australia's leading class action
law firms, specialising in shareholder class actions.

What can Shareholders do?

Phi Finney McDonald and IMF Bentham encourage all investors who
acquired shares in AMP between 6 May 2013 and 13 April 2018
(inclusive) to register their interest via IMF Bentham's
confidential, dedicated website page (www.imf.com/amp).

About IMF

IMF is one of the leading global litigation funders,
headquartered in Australia and with offices in the US, Singapore,
Canada, Hong Kong and the UK.  IMF has built its reputation as a
trusted provider of innovative litigation funding solutions and
has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of litigation
funding assets.

IMF has a highly experienced litigation funding team overseeing
its investments. We have a 90% success rate over 166 completed
investments and have recovered over A$1.3 billion for clients
since 2001. [GN]


AMP LTD: To Vigorously Defend 2 Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that top Australian wealth manager AMP said it
will defend two class action lawsuits filed against it following
damaging revelations from a government-ordered inquiry into the
country's financial industry.

AMP confirmed that lawsuits have been filed by global law firm
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Melbourne-based firm Phi
Finney McDonald on behalf of some shareholders.

"AMP intends to vigorously defend the proceedings," the company
said in a statement ahead of its annual general meeting later on
May 19, where angry shareholders are expected to challenge board
re-appointments and executive pay.

Three directors quit AMP on May 8 following the departure of the
company's chairman, chief executive and in-house lawyer, after
revelations at the inquiry that the once-venerable firm had lied
to regulators, allegedly doctored an independent report, and
charged customers fees for no service.

Quinn Emanuel said on May 9 it had filed a class action on behalf
of shareholders who have seen AMP's market capitalization plunge
by around A$2 billion ($1.5 billion) following admissions made by
AMP executives during the inquiry.

"The class action alleges that, amongst other things, AMP
breached its continuous disclosure obligations and made
misleading statements, causing shareholders significant loss,"
the firm said in a statement.

Australian litigation financier IMF Bentham had said it would
fund class action proceedings against AMP that would be conducted
by Phi Finney McDonald. [GN]


AMP LTD: Suits to Pile Up Amid Royal Commission Revelations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that appetite for shareholder and consumer class actions is
growing amid revelations from the banking royal commission.

Both Quinn Emanuel and Phi Finney McDonald have filed class
actions against AMP after evidence from the commission slashed
the company's market capitalisation by $2 billion.

Quinn Emanuel said it had the potential to be one of Australia's
largest shareholder claims.

Andrew Saker, chief executive of litigation funder IMF Bentham,
said there had been more activity in the class action area,
partly as a result of the banking royal commission.

IMF is funding Phi Finney McDonald's class action against AMP.

There is more competition in the class action law sector,
Mr Saker says, with more established law firms acting for
plaintiffs.

"Historically, law firms didn't want to represent the plaintiffs.
As class action and litigation finance become more mainstream,
there is a greater level of acceptance of class action among the
legal community," Mr Saker said.

Two other law firms -- Slater and Gordon and Shine Lawyers --
have flagged they are investigating class actions against AMP.

Speaking on the day of AMP's annual general meeting, Slater and
Gordon's head of class action Ben Hardwick said hundreds of
retail and institutional investors had signed up to case, in
"some of the fastest uptake" for actions of this type.

He said competition between class action lawyers and funders was
good news for shareholders and consumers.

"It's not a race to the court. A prudent member would consider
different commission rates on the table before committing to one
funder or another," he said.

Slater and Gordon is yet to file its lawsuit.

The firm, which is already investigating a possible class action
against banks for worthless add-on credit card insurance expects
more lawsuits.

"The AMP revelations are shocking and if further revelations come
to light as a result of the royal commission, you would expect to
see more class action," Mr Hardwick said. [GN]


AMP LTD: Expects Higher Remediation Costs Following Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Gardner and Alice Uribe, writing for Australian Financial
Review, report that beleaguered wealth management giant AMP has
flagged higher remediation costs as the fall out from the
damaging revelations heard at the banking royal commission has
led to a second class action being launched on May 10.

Interim executive chairman and chief executive Mike Wilkins said
in an update to investors on May 10 AMP was committed to its
advice business, which has been rocked by revelations at the
Hayne royal commission that saw the departure of the former CEO,
chairman, legal counsel and the resignation of three directors.

"We have been very disappointed that, in some instances, our
customers have not received appropriate levels of service for the
fees they have paid.  We are working hard to accelerate the
remediation for our customers," he said,

AMP said it was continuing to review its service arrangements
between its advisers and customers after admitting it had charged
customers fees for no service and lied the regulator about it.

"This program is ongoing, however we anticipate that the outcomes
will lead to higher customer remediation costs and related
expenses," AMP said.

Law firm Phi Finney McDonald, backed by litigation funder IMF
Bentham, on May 10 said that it would launch a class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired AMP shares between May 6,
2013 and April 13, 2018.

Wealth management a black spot
This is the second class action the wealth manager faces after
law firm Quinn Emanuel filed its own on the eve of the company's
annual general meeting on May 10.

QE says it has the potential to be one of Australia's largest
shareholder claims.  The class action is backed by global
litigation funder Burford Capital.

AMP said in a statement that it plans to "vigorously defend" both
actions.

In an update released to investors on May 10 ahead of its AGM,
AMP said about $200 million flowed out of AMP's Australian wealth
management unit in the last quarter, in line with the same period
last year.

It blamed subdued activity in superannuation following non-
concessional contribution cap changes in 2017.

The wealth management unit, which encompasses, superannuation,
investment platforms and advice businesses and makes up 35 per
cent of the business, was a black spot in the company's full-year
2017 results in February.

At the time AMP called it a "resilient" result, despite its
operating earnings dropping by $10 million, or 2.5 per cent, from
2016 to $391 million, partially due to customers transitioning to
MySuper.

The May 10 AGM in Melbourne is tipped to be fiery with
shareholders wanting explanations for the damaging information
heard at the royal commission.

It will reportedly deliver a first "strike" against AMP's
remuneration report by investors who are angry at the company's
management.

Directors Vanessa Wallace and Holly Kramer quit ahead of the
meeting instead of being voted off the board.

Assets under management for the division in the three months
ended March 31 fell 2 per cent from the previous quarter to
$128.3 billion due to "weaker investment markets".

Mr Wilkins said AMP would "continue to progress the portfolio
review, however, we are currently prioritising the performance of
the business, board renewal and the appointment of a new CEO".

The portfolio review has been running since 2017 and was expected
to identify potential businesses for sale to increase shareholder
value.  Investors are licking their wounds given $4 billion has
been wiped from AMP's market value.

Analysts had previously raised concerns that the review had been
put on the backburner due to the company's leadership turmoil.
Prior to the departure of executives, it had been expected that
results of the review would be delivered at the AGM.

Compared to the subdued activity in the wealth management arm,
AMP Bank and AMP Capital performed more strongly.

The bank's total loan book rose 2 per cent to $19.8 billion for
the quarter.

AMP's North platform, which allows customers to manage a range of
investment products in the one place, had a 14 per cent rise in
cashflows to $1.2 billion. [GN]


AMP LTD: Slater and Gordon Launches Class Action Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Simmons, writing for Business News Australia, reports that
Slater and Gordon launches class action investigation against AMP
Slater and Gordon (ASX: SGH) has become the third national law
firm to fire shots at AMP (ASX: AMP), launching its own
investigations into a potential class action against the
financial services giant.

Backed by litigation funder Therium, Slater and Gordon, is
investigating potential allegations that AMP breached its
continuous disclosure obligations between 28 May 2015 and 13
April 2018, causing investors to suffer losses.

Ben Hardwick, the head of class actions at Slater and Gordon,
says the class action has the potential to be one of Australia's
biggest class actions.

"More than a billion dollars has been wiped from AMP's market cap
since these revelations were made public during the Royal
Commission hearings and it has left thousands of investors
reeling," says Mr. Hardwick.

"Not only did senior executives admit AMP had been charging
significant fees for financial advice services it did not
provide, but they also admitted the bank tried to conceal these
practices by repeatedly telling ASIC they were the result of an
administrative error.

"We allege that this conduct was both unlawful and unethical and
reflected serious compliance problems within AMP, and the market
had a right to be informed about what they were buying into."

The investigation revolves around the widely publicised
revelation that AMP had been charging customers fees without
providing services.

Slater and Gordon will allege that AMP ought to have disclosed to
the ASX from the 27th May 2017 that it had been charging
customers fees without providing services, that it made
misleading statements to the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC), and that the situation arose from
inadequate monitoring, reporting and governance controls.

"We allege this conduct escalated and continued without being
disclosed until it was ultimately revealed in the Royal
Commission in the week commencing April 16, 2018," says
Mr. Hardwick.

Slater and Gordon are now the third law firm launching a class
action against AMP.  They join Quinn Emanual Urquhart & Sullivan
and Phi Finney McDonald who are launching similar class actions
on behalf of aggrieved shareholders.

AMP said on May 10 that it "intends to vigorously defend the
proceedings."

AMP denied allegations that it acted criminally, two weeks after
it admitted it was charging customers for advice they never
received.

The institution says it takes full responsibility but does not
accept submissions made to the Banking Royal Commission that it's
actions amount to a criminal office.

It also denied allegations that it overstepped bounds when it
provided ASIC with a report from an "independent" investigation
into its business compiled by Clayton Utz.

In the wake of the "fee for no service" drama two of AMP's
directors, CEO Craig Meller and Chairman Catherine Brenner, have
departed the company.

AMP's Group General Counsel and three non-executive directors
have also left the company.

AMP together with the nation's big four banks have collectively
paid nearly $219 million in compensation to more than 310,000
financial advice customers charged fees for no service in return.

AMP has personally refunded $4.7 million across more than 15,700
customers since it began cooperating with ASIC in May last year.
[GN]


AMP LTD: Quinn Emanuel Files Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Melanie Burton, writing for Reuters, reports that global law firm
Quinn Emanuel filed a lawsuit against Australian wealth manager
AMP Ltd on May 9, a day before the company's annual general
meeting, complaining of allegations of criminal misconduct that
have sent AMP shares tumbling.

Quinn Emanuel said it filed the class action on behalf of
shareholders who have seen AMP's market capitalisation plunge by
around A$2 billion ($1.49 billion) following admissions AMP
executives made during a government-ordered inquiry into
misconduct in Australia's banking sector.

"The class action alleges that, amongst other things, AMP
breached its continuous disclosure obligations and made
misleading statements, causing shareholders significant loss,"
the law firm, whose full name is Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, said in a statement.

AMP had no immediate comment.

The class action, filed at the supreme court of New South Wales,
is the first against AMP and is backed by global litigation
funders Burford Capital.

Three directors quit AMP on May 8 following the departure of
AMP's chairman, chief executive and in-house lawyer, after
revelations at the inquiry that the once-venerable firm had lied
to regulators and allegedly doctored an independent report.

Shares in AMP closed at A$4.08 on May 9, giving the firm a market
value of A$11.91 billion. [GN]


ANGLO AMERICAN: Trust Set Up for Silicosis Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Penelope Andrews, writing for The Conversation, reports that the
lawyers for miners who either fell sick or died after contracting
silicosis and tuberculosis on South Africa's gold mines, have
reached a historic class action settlement with the industry.
The R5 billion (US$400 million) settlement becomes the country's
second class action resolution and therefore very much a
precedent setter.

Class action is a newish feature within South Africa's legal
landscape.  It was incorporated into the country's post-apartheid
era constitution adopted in 1996.  But class action litigation
has been used infrequently in South Africa, unlike in the US
where it's become a prominent feature of justice.

The constitutional provision quite clearly sets out that anyone
acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of
persons [may approach the courts].

Despite this, there isn't a significant body of procedural rules
in place.  Cases such as the silicosis matter contribute to the
growing body of rules of the game and are likely to influence
future class actions.  In particular, clarification of the space
should allow vulnerable communities to use class action to secure
justice.

The silicosis case will see multitudes of former gold mining
workers who acquired respiratory diseases, such as silicosis and
tuberculosis, during their working lives from 1965 to date,
receive due compensation.

The compensation process is to be arranged through a new entity
that's been set up specifically for this purpose -- the Tshiamiso
Trust.  The agreement identifies various classes of eligible
claimants, depending on the stage of the diseases. The amounts of
compensation ranges from R10,000 to R500,000.

The proposed silicosis settlement notes that: a compromise
settlement is far preferable to all concerned than an inevitably
lengthy and expensive litigation process, allowing for eligible
claimants more quickly to receive compensation and relief for
their conditions.

According to Ms. Andrews, the significance of this settlement is
captured by five elements: compensation, accountability,
deterrence, education and reinforcing rights.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SETTLEMENT

Compensation: This relates to the compensation that the claimants
will be paid.  For many, especially the employees who are ill and
their dependent spouses and children, the payments will enable
them to secure medical assistance and to ensure access to some of
the basic necessities of life.  They will at least have a measure
of certainty that some of their needs will be taken care of.

Accountability: The settlement is an indication that employers
will be held accountable, no matter how long after the harm has
occurred or manifested itself.  In other words, the obligation of
employers to create safe working environments is reinforced.

Deterrence: Although past employment conditions did not protect
the claimants, it is hoped that gold mining companies are put on
notice about ensuring that working conditions protect the health
and safety of workers.  Employers must put in place processes and
programmes to reinforce health and safety.  Although mining is
essentially a dangerous occupation, mining companies should
minimise harm.

Education: The class action and settlement agreement will serve
as a useful educational tool for the wider public who seek
healthy and safe working conditions. In addition, the process of
settlement, including the notices, applications, negotiations
between the lawyers, companies and workers will educate the
public on legal processes and heighten awareness of health and
safety considerations in all workplaces.

Reinforcing Rights: This matter is significant in its potential
to reinforce South African society's appreciation and pursuit of
rights embodied in the Constitution.  The settlement agreement
reassures workers and others that the law can be used as an
instrument of justice.  It shows that those who violate the
rights of people will be held accountable.

ALLEVIATING HARM

The agreement is groundbreaking in that it is the first class
action settlement of its kind. It follows another silicosis
litigation which led to the establishment of the Qhubeka Trust in
March 2016.

The Constitutional Court has also allowed a claim by the
dependants of a deceased miner to sue his employers for his death
from silicosis and tuberculosis.

And class action litigation that prompted the settlement might be
continued by victims who choose not to be part of this
settlement.  For those who endorse the agreement, it leads to a
full and final settlement of the claims against the gold mining
companies.

The settlement is conditional to a confirmation by the court.
This is a requirement built into the class action procedures to
guard against abuse of the system.

No doubt the establishment of the Qhubeka Trust and the
constitutional court litigation made a substantial contribution
to -- and considerably influenced -- the cause of action and
approach adopted by the lawyers negotiating the current
settlement.

As is the case with all litigation involving damages, those who
are harmed cannot be made whole.  But they and their dependants
can at least be provided with some level of compensation that may
alleviate the effects of the harm.  Hopefully this settlement
will do the same.

Penelope Andrews is Dean of Law and Professor, University of Cape
Town. [GN]


APAPOSH INC: Olsen Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apaposh Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apaposh Inc. doing
business as: Brandy Melville USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
04550 (S.D. N.Y., May 22, 2018).

Apaposh, Inc., doing business as Brandy Melville, operates a
chain of retail stores. It offers apparels for girls such as
dresses, tops, sweaters, jackets, skirts, pants, and shorts. The
company also provides jewelry, bags, hats, and beanies. Apaposh,
Inc was founded in 2011 and is based in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


ARITAUM BEAUTY: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aritaum Beauty Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Aritaum Beauty
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04594 (S.D. N.Y., May 23,
2018).

Aritaum Beauty Inc. is a beauty salon in New York, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


ART OF SHAVING: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Art of
Shaving - FL, LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Art
of Shaving - FL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04590 (S.D.
N.Y., May 23, 2018).

The Art of Shaving, LLC develops, produces, and markets
aromatherapy-based shaving and skincare products for men and
women in the United States. It provides various shaving products,
which include pre-shave oils, shaving creams, after-shave balms,
pure badger blacks, and shaving cream pumps; lavender,
sandalwood, and lemon essential oils; ingrown hair treatments;
after-shave masks; shaving soaps; after-shave gels; and styptic
pens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


AUSTRALIA: Ex-PM Called to Give Evidence in Pink Batts Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Associated Press reports that the former prime
minister Kevin Rudd has been called to give evidence in a class
action in Victoria over his government's home insulation scheme.

The Victorian supreme court on May 10 asked Mr. Rudd to give
evidence via video link from New York during the trial, which
began in late April and is expected to last six weeks.

The class action over the cancellation in 2010 of the Rudd
government's home insulation program is seeking about $150m in
damages from the commonwealth.

More than 140 businesses have joined the class action, which
claims they suffered heavy losses when the program was shut down
for safety reasons as a result of the government's negligence.

Sign up to receive the top stories from Guardian Australia every
morning

The 2009 Rudd government established the $2.7bn home insulation
program as part of a broader $42bn economic stimulus package.

But it was shut down a year later following the deaths of four
workers in New South Wales and Queensland in 2009 and 2010.

When the trial opened on 23 April, class action barrister
Jim Delany QC said the market for retrofitting homes with
insulation totalled less than 70,000 homes annually before the
scheme.

The program promised to fit 2.2m homes over a two-year period,
representing about a 15-fold increase in demand.

The market was created and controlled by the commonwealth, and
scores of businesses were left financially devastated when the
government program was abruptly shut down, the court was told.

The class action says businesses took on staff, expanded
production and invested in new machinery and other equipment to
meet demand.

A royal commission in 2014 found the four deaths would not have
occurred if the scheme had been properly designed and
implemented.

Mr. Rudd also took the witness stand during the royal commission.

The former prime minister said when he was approached to give
evidence to the supreme court he was "very happy to do so".

No date has been set for his appearance in the supreme court but
is not expected until at least late May.

This story was amended on 13 May 2018 to remove any suggestion
that Mr. Rudd was unwilling to give evidence. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Sydney Light Rail Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Tram and Light Rail News reports that more than 110 businesses
and residents affected by the Sydney light rail project have
registered their interest in joining a class-action lawsuit
against the state government.

Last year Central Sydney revealed the state government had agreed
to backdate rent relief to businesses who could prove they had
been affected as a result of delayed construction along the light
rail route.

This followed a campaign led by City of Sydney councillor, George
St cafe owner and Small Business Matters party founder Angela
Vithoulkas.

The Sydney Light Rail Class Action Suit campaign was launched in
March to evaluate whether there was a case for class action
against the department following claims of false promises of
support and compensation.

Reports surfaced of businesses being knocked back because they
had been forced into liquidation, employed too many staff, owned
a second shop elsewhere or the business was on the second floor.

"We're prepared to fight for our lives -- that's what this class
action is going to show," Cr Vithoulkas said.

"We have no choice but to fight and everyone knows that small
business will put up a good fight.

"That's what we're all about. We fight the odds, we fight the
economic climate and we're prepared to fight the state government
-- and we're going to win." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: DACA Recipient Files Job Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Cadman, writing for Center for Immigration Studies, reported
that a Brazilian recipient of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals) is suing Bank of America (BofA) after it declined to
hire him as a "wealth manager" despite his educational
qualifications. There are several interesting angles to the
story.

First, although Brazilian, he's being represented by the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). Why is
that, you ask? This isn't just the goodness of their hearts
speaking: You can be pretty sure that MALDEF is looking ahead to
the fact that tens of thousands of DACA recipients are Mexican
nationals, and the organization clearly hopes to use the
Brazilian as its "tip of the spear", which leads us to the next
point.

Second, MALDEF is seeking to make this a class action lawsuit,
even though there's no indicator, at least in the articles, that
BofA was routinely engaging in discrimination. A class action
suit brings in the possibility of large cash settlements in which
MALDEF will share, or perhaps take the lion's share since it's
almost certainly doing the legal work pro bono (free).

Third, the article notes that this is the second such lawsuit
filed on the Brazilian's behalf against a big-name financial
firm, the other being Allied Wealth Partners. One is obliged to
ask: Is he just particularly ill-fortuned, or has MALDEF sent him
on a cherry-picking mission to gin up lawsuits, rather than
actually obtain gainful employment?

Fourth, there's an interesting twist here. From the article, one
can reasonably infer that although at the time he applied, he had
work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), in future he would need to renew it. In fact, he asserts
that he said as much at both firms when job hunting. Of course,
the future of DACA is in doubt because the president ordered it
terminated, and although various courts have enjoined the
termination, it's clear that this is headed to the Supreme Court
for final adjudication. If it's permitted to end, the Brazilian's
out of luck short of a congressional amnesty fix.

So did he have a right to the job? On its face, the quick answer
may be yes (let me strongly emphasize the word "may"), if indeed
the circumstances are as he claims and there aren't any hidden
facts not in evidence. But think about the job he wanted: wealth
management advisor. That's the person you rely on to manage your
funds on a long-term basis to ensure that they grow. Given the
type of responsibilities entailed, wouldn't potential employers
be right to measure two equally poised and qualified candidates
by their employment staying power, where one candidate's right to
work might end precipitously in the not-distant future?

These days, financial advisors aren't just for the well-heeled.
Many companies, and even federal and state governments, have
substituted pension plans with matching-contribution plans (like
401(k)) that rely on stock and bond portfolios to produce the
money needed to fund your retirement. Those plans rely in turn on
companies like Allied and BofA to do the actual day-to-day
business of managing tens (or hundreds) of billions of dollars in
investments of ordinary folks who will need that money when they
age out of the workforce. People like you and me.

Do you really want companies to be relying on an individual who
may not be there in six months or a year? What kinds of decisions
is he making with your investments in the interim if he suspects
he may not be there for the long term? Will they be wise? Will he
care if they are or not, especially if DACA is ordered ended by
the Supreme Court and his personal life is in turmoil?

Finally, how does engaging in the hire of short-term wealth
managers, which certainly seems fraught with risk, interact with
the company's fiduciary obligation to exercise reasonable
prudence when investing in your behalf? Perhaps one such person
does no harm, because he can be subbed out by a replacement. But
what if companies hire several such individuals for fear of being
sued for discrimination if they don't? After all, MALDEF and the
complainant are attempting to launch a class action lawsuit.

"I hope that these are things the court will consider as it goes
about the business of hearing the case. I also hope the court
will think carefully about the propriety of certifying a class
action. Such a decision shouldn't be taken lightly, however much
it might be all the rage among activist jurists in some places,"
the writer said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in California Over "Sham Appraisals"
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben McLannahan, writing for The Financial Times, reports that a
class-action lawsuit in California has reopened decade-old wounds
for Bank of America, where a former subsidiary is accused of
conducting "sham" appraisals to boost mortgage volumes in the
run-up to the financial crisis.

The case relates to assessments of property values carried out by
LandSafe, the appraisals arm of Countrywide, which BofA bought
for a knockdown $2.5bn in January 2008.

According to the suit, LandSafe routinely inflated appraisals by
cherry-picking appraisers, withholding certain information and
otherwise ignoring professional standards, in order to help its
parent quickly close on loans it then flipped to Wall Street
investors.

Borrowers were charged hundreds of millions of dollars for their
appraisals, which are required by law for every real estate
transaction above $250,000.  Appraisals are supposed to be
accurate and objective opinions of a property's value.

"Manipulating borrowers and coercing them into paying for phoney
appraisals is simply wrong," said Roland Tellis, head of the
class-action group at Baron & Budd in Los Angeles.  "We intend to
continue our fight to ensure each and every borrower who was
affected by this scheme receives justice."

BofA declined to comment on the case, which alleges violations of
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
among other offences.  The bank disclosed the lawsuit for the
first time in a regulatory filing, noting that it had applied to
the district court for the central district of California for
permission to appeal the class certification.

The case is an unwelcome throwback for the Charlotte, North
Carolina-based bank, which found itself on the hook for billions
of dollars of fines for mis-selling after its crisis-era
purchases of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch.

The bank sold LandSafe to Corelogic in 2015 for $70m, part of an
effort to streamline its operations under the " responsible
growth " mantra of Brian Moynihan, chairman and chief executive.
[GN]


BARNES & NOBLE: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew C. Glass, Esq., David D. Christensen, Esq., Matthew N.
Lowe, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for The National Law
Review, wrote that in Dieffenbach v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., the
Seventh Circuit allowed a data breach class action to survive the
pleadings stage, including a challenge to the plaintiffs'
standing.  At the same time, the Court indicated that the
plaintiffs may have a tough time proving their claims on the
merits or establishing that class certification is warranted.
That warning may put the brakes on this action as well as others
brought on a similar theory of liability.

The Dieffenbach case arose out of an alleged 2012 breach of the
defendant's point of sale system.  Hackers acquired customers'
names, credit and debit card numbers and expiration dates, and
PINs.  In 2013, the district court dismissed the case for lack of
standing.  Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit issued a pair of
decisions in two other data breach class action cases, which held
that "consumers who experience a theft of their data indeed have
standing."  In light of these decisions, the district court
reversed course on the standing question but nonetheless
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failure to adequately plead
damages.

Although it expressed skepticism as to whether the plaintiffs
could prove their case on the merits, the Seventh Circuit vacated
the dismissal and held that when a plaintiff has adequately
alleged standing, they have also adequately alleged damages if
that is an element of their underlying claim.  The Court ruled
that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged standing on three
bases: "[1] because the data theft may have led them to pay money
for credit-monitoring services, [2] because unauthorized
withdrawals from their accounts cause a loss (the time value of
money) even when banks later restore the principal, and [3]
because the value of one's own time needed to set things straight
is a loss from an opportunity-cost perspective."  The Seventh
Circuit went on to hold that, as a general matter, "[t]hese
injuries can justify money damages, just as they support
standing" as "all th[e] complaint needed to do was allege
generally that plaintiffs have been injured."

Turning to damages, the Court first examined whether one of the
named plaintiffs had adequately alleged "lost money or property"
sufficient to sustain her claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), based upon her allegations that "(1) her
bank took three days to restore funds someone else had used to
make a fraudulent purchase [and she could not use her account
during that time]; (2) she had to spend time sorting things out
with the police and her bank; . . . and [3] she did not receive
the benefit of her bargain." Alleging "lost money or property"
under the California law is not an insignificant hurdle, yet the
Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff's first and second
alleged injuries were sufficient, because being without her
account for three days caused her to lose the "time value of
[her] money" even if she eventually got it all back, and because
"significant time and paper-work costs incurred . . . can qualify
as economic losses."  The Court's holding under the California
UCL, however, is arguably at odds with established California law
that monetary damages are not recoverable under the UCL.  Rather,
the UCL limits plaintiffs' remedies to restitution and injunctive
relief.

As to the damages allegations under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Court focused on the
second plaintiff's allegation that "the security breach . . .
'was a decisive factor' when she renewed a credit-monitoring
service for $16.99 per month."  The Court stated, in rather
summary fashion, that "a monthly $17 out of pocket is a form of
'actual damage' [because] [i]t is real and measurable; Illinois
does not require more."

Despite holding the door open to the plaintiffs at the pleadings
stage, the Seventh Circuit made clear that its decision was
narrow in scope.  Specifically, the Court noted that its decision
only "concerns injury," and that it "ha[d] not considered whether
[defendant] violated any of these [] state's laws by failing to
prevent villains from stealing plaintiffs' names and account
data."  Further, the plaintiffs' ability to prove their claims
was likely to be difficult as "[n]one of the state laws expressly
makes merchants liable for failure to crime-proof their point of
sale systems," and "plaintiffs must show that a culpable data
breach caused the monthly payments."  Indeed, the Seventh Circuit
noted that the defendant here "was itself a victim," and
"[p]laintiffs may have a difficult task showing an entitlement to
collect damages from a fellow victim of the data thieves."  The
Court also expressed doubt that the case could be certified
because the "state laws and the potential damages are disparate."

At the end of the day, the Dieffenbach decision may prove to be
less of a boon and more of a bust for plaintiffs in data breach
class actions.  Although it may provide a means to get into court
and survive a motion to dismiss, the decision makes clear that
obtaining a favorable outcome may be a "difficult task."  We will
continue to monitor and report on developments regarding data
breach litigation in the Seventh Circuit and elsewhere. [GN]


BAY AREA REGIONAL: Ex-Employees Files Suit Over Abrupt Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Rege, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
two former Webster, Texas-based Bay Area Regional Medical Center
employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the hospital and
its parent company May 7, claiming the institutions violated the
law by failing to provide sufficient notice of the hospital's
closure, which occurred May 10.

Bay Area Regional officials and the hospital's parent company,
Houston-based Medistar, announced the closure of the 191-bed
hospital and officials' intent to file for bankruptcy May 4.
Approximately 900 employees were affected by the closure.

In the lawsuit, obtained by Becker's Hospital Review, the two
employees allege Bay Area Regional and Medistar violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 by
"failing to give . . . at least 60 days' advance written notice
of termination, as required under the WARN Act."

Because of the violation, the employees are entitled to their
wages and retirement benefits for 60 days, "none of which [have]
been paid," the employees allege in the lawsuit.

A lead attorney on the lawsuit told Click 2 Houston because of
the lawsuit's class-action status, any employee who discovered
they were terminated without cause May 4 can join the lawsuit.

"[With] any corporation with more than 100 employees, you're
supposed to get 60-day notice and obviously we didn't get 60
days' notice," one of the plaintiffs in the case told Click 2
Houston. "We're not looking to get rich. We're just looking for
something we should have got in the first place." [GN]


BIG HEART: Suits Over Contaminated Dog Food Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Entis, writing for Food Safety News, reports that a class
action lawsuit was filed May 1 in Northern California against Big
Heart Pet Brands Inc. on behalf of consumers and businesses who
bought pentobarbital-contaminated dog food manufactured by the
company.

Big Heart is owned by the J.M. Smucker Co.

The lawsuit, referred to as a master consolidated complaint,
consolidates four similar actions filed in February and March
against the company.

The complaint accuses Big Heart of several counts, including
negligent misrepresentation, violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, negligence, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud and deceptive
and unfair trade practices.

Plaintiffs are seeking an order preventing Big Heart from selling
the contaminated dog food, a mandatory corrective advertising
campaign, full restitution and an unspecified amount of actual,
statutory and punitive damages.

The pentobarbital problem came to light in February, when a
Washington, D.C.-television station's investigation into
potential pentobarbital contamination in canned, wet dog food
revealed the presence of the drug in several Gravy Train
products.  Veterinarians use large doses of the fast-acting drug
to euthanize animals.

Gravy Train is manufactured by Big Heart.

Mark Johnson, one of the plaintiffs named in the class action
suit, owned 13 border collie and Australian shepherd mixes, which
he used as herding dogs for his cattle.  All of Johnson's dogs
developed kidney failure within a few hours after eating a Gravy
Train product and had to be put down on Jan. 14 and 15, according
to the complaint.

There is no mention in the complaint of a confirmed cause of the
kidney failure, or of any laboratory analyses being carried out
either at necropsies on the dogs or on the dog food.

The presence of pentobarbital at any level in animal food renders
the product adulterated, according to the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

Oral exposure to pentobarbital causes primarily neurological
symptoms including drowsiness, dizziness, excitement, loss of
balance, jerky eye movements, and, in the most severe cases, coma
and death.  Kidney failure is not one of the reported
manifestations of oral pentobarbital poisoning.

An investigator from the FDA's Philadelphia district office
visited Big Heart's Bloomsbury manufacturing facility five times
between Feb. 23 and March 12, 2018, according to information
obtained by Food Safety News in response to a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request.

At the end of the inspection, the investigator cited the presence
of pentobarbital in a retained sample of tallow from February
2017 and in a sample from the company's current inventory of
tallow.  The tallow is among ingredients used in the manufacture
of Gravy Train, Kibbles 'n Bits, Skippy and Ol' Roy canned, wet
dog food brands.

On Feb. 16, FDA alerted consumers to the potential contamination
issue and advised the public that Smucker was withdrawing from
the market a wide range of canned, wet dog food products.

The withdrawal was upgraded to a Class III voluntary product
recall on March 2.

A Class III recall is one in which the " . . . product is
violative and use of or exposure to the product is not likely to
cause any adverse health consequences," according to FDA's
Regulatory Procedures Manual.

Although the concentration of pentobarbital found in the tallow
was included in the investigator's completed Form 483
(Inspectional Observations), the information was redacted from
the copy supplied to Food Safety News.

According to information contained in the class action complaint,
the retained sample of tallow contained pentobarbital at a level
of 529 parts per billion (ppb). Levels of the drug in the current
inventory ranged from 802 ppb to 852 ppb.

The tallow was allegedly supplied by MOPAC, an eastern
Pennsylvania rendering facility belonging to JBS USA Holdings
Inc.

When asked to confirm the reported levels of pentobarbital in the
tallow samples, a spokesperson for FDA declined to comment.  An
FOIA request for the lab reports and for the Notice of Inspection
(Form 482) was turned down on April 20, with the explanation that
they were "not available" at the time.

It is standard procedure for an investigator to issue a Form 482
Notice of Inspection at the outset of any inspection. No
explanation was given as to why this document was unavailable.

FDA has issued no updates on the status of its investigation or
of the product recalls since the March 2nd recall notice. [GN]


BREAD AND CHOCOLATE: "Gonzales" Action to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Gonzalez, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Bread and Chocolate LLC (d/b/a Granier Bakery,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-21438, (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 weekly, with interest, double
damages/liquidated damages, declaratory relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Granier Bakery is a bakery/cafeteria business located at 18230,
Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 where Gonzalez
worked from approximately February 24, 2014, through November 25,
2017 as a bakery employee. He claims to have worked for up to 50
and 60 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of
not less than one and one-half times the regular rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CANADA: Class Action v. Armed Forces Over Alleged Racism Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Mulligan, writing for CBC News, reports that Wallace
Fowler never saw active combat in the Canadian Forces, but he was
discharged in 2004 after three years of service because of
post-traumatic stress disorder.  He says his diagnosis came after
suffering through racism at the hands of fellow servicemen and
women.

This alleged racism serves as the grounds for a class action
lawsuit that was launched by Mr. Fowler, fellow black Nova
Scotian Rubin Coward and two other Forces members against the
Canadian Forces in December 2016.

A hearing to certify that class action was scheduled to be heard
on April 11 of this year.  However, lawyers for the Canadian
Forces offered in February to settle out of court, though no
final deal had been reached as of May 8.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced in February the
government would try to reach out-of-court settlements in several
class action lawsuits relating to sexual assault, racism,
harassment and discrimination.

"We look forward to commencing these discussions to bring
closure, healing, and acknowledgement to the victims and
survivors of sexual assault, racism, harassment and
discrimination," Mr. Sajjan said in a Feb. 23 statement.

The minister added that the Forces "take seriously our obligation
to ensure a safe work environment," adding that military leaders
have "taken concrete action" to eliminate racism and
discrimination from the workplace.

Mr. Fowler said he encountered racism soon after his first
posting in Esquimalt, B.C., in 2001.  He said he was subjected to
racist jokes and nicknames like "Sunshine" and "Boy" by his
superiors.  Mr. Fowler said he was denied warm clothing, food and
sleep during exercises because of his race.

He lived on CFB Esquimalt with his spouse and children.  He said
his sons were taunted on the school bus, got into fights and were
spat on and subjected to drive-by verbal assaults.

Mr. Fowler said his spouse had bananas thrown at her while
walking home on the base.

Complaints went nowhere, says Fowler
"It hurts when they're taking shots at your family," said
Mr. Fowler.  "Not only were they doing things to me at work, I
would come home and I would hear stories of what was happening to
my kids and my spouse."

Mr. Fowler, who never made it past the rank of private, said he
reported his complaints up the chain of command, but that nothing
was ever done.

Mr. Fowler was transferred to CFB Trenton in Ontario where he
said the discrimination continued.

'Serious health issues' persist
A statement of claim filed for the proposed class-action lawsuit
reads, in part, that "after months of ridicule and isolation,
Mr. Fowler was diagnosed with serious and deteriorating
psychological illness" and "continues to suffer from these
serious health issues today, none of which were present at the
time he enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces."

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

When Mr. Fowler was discharged in 2004 his superiors said he was
"not advantageously employable."

Mr. Fowler met Rubin (Rocky) Coward in May 2011.  Mr. Coward had
joined the Armed Forces in 1981.

Mr. Coward said his first run-in with racial discrimination
started as soon he began basic training at CFB Cornwallis in Deep
Brook, N.S., which has since closed. Eventually, he said, the
racism he encountered made him angry.

"I said to my wife, I was the angriest black man in Canada," said
Mr. Coward.

He recalls walking into a mess hall with two white women in
Borden, Ont., when a man yelled to the women, "What are you doing
here with a n----r?" said Coward. He then got into a fight with
the man.

By the early 1990s, Mr. Coward was a sergeant at CFB Greenwood
where he said he routinely overheard superiors refer to him using
racial slurs.  He said he reported the abuse to a superior
officer, but was told to either put up with it or leave the
Forces.

Mr. Coward left the Forces in 1995.  He'd served in Israel, Syria
and Germany, but said it was racism in the Forces that brought on
his post-traumatic stress disorder.

The February 2018 suspension of litigation means an out-of-court
dialogue between Mr. Fowler, Mr. Coward and the Forces is
underway, with an aim to agree on a settlement and discuss ways
to move forward.

For Mr. Fowler, it's a relief to have litigation end and
conversations begin.

'It'll give me some closure'
"When it's all said and done, it'll give me some closure, but
I'll never get my time back," he said.

Mr. Coward said he's elated about the conversations taking place.

"It's always arduous when you have to pull the toboggan up the
hill, but it's always fun when you can sit on the toboggan and go
back down," he said.

If the settlement negotiations fail, Mr. Fowler and Mr. Coward's
lawyers will be back in court next February to restart the class
action lawsuit. [GN]


CANADA: Allegedly Used Indigenous People for Medical Experiments
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Saskatchewan man has launched a class-
action lawsuit, alleging the federal government is responsible
for experiments and the inadequate medical treatment of
residential school students and Indigenous patients at hospitals
and sanatoriums across the country.

Merchant Law Group filed the suit in the Court of Queen's Bench
for Saskatchewan on behalf of John Pambrun, a resident of
Lestock, Sask. and one of thousands of children the suit claims
were mistreated.

Tony Merchant, the principal at Regina-based Merchant Law group,
says the suit ties together experiences affecting thousands of
Indigenous people in Canada, who were treated like guinea pigs
and given different treatments than their non-Indigenous peers.

"For many people, they don't even know that they were used in
these ways in the schools," he said.  "They don't know that tests
were done on them.  They don't know that they were a control
group.  They don't know that the medical treatment they were
receiving for tuberculosis was different."

He called it part of Canada's "atrocious past," in its treatment
of Indigenous people.

Tony Merchant, principal at Regina-based Merchant Law group, said
that he feels confident in the strength of a lawsuit the law firm
is launching against the federal government.  The class action
alleges that Indigenous students and patients received
unnecessary and experimental medical treatment.
The suit has not been tested in court.

This is not the first time such a suit has been filed in Canada.
In January, two Canadian law firms filed a $1.1-billion class-
action lawsuit on behalf of former patients of 29 segregated
hospitals operated across the country by the federal government
between 1945 and the early 1980s.

Man had part of lung removed: suit
Mr. Pambrun spent more than five years in hospitals and
sanatoriums, including the Saskatoon Sanitorium, from the ages of
eight to 15, the latest suit says.

According to the statement of claim, doctors at the Saskatoon
Sanitorium removed part of Mr. Pambrun's right lung in 1955 as a
treatment for tuberculosis, even though tests had revealed he did
not have TB and despite antibiotics having become "the standard
treatment for tuberculosis."

"We are mystified why they performed the surgery," Mr. Merchant
told CBC News on May 9.

The experience has left Mr. Pambrun with breathing problems that
affected his experience of life and limited his employment
options, according to the suit.

"It has just been gnawing him all these years that he was
mistreated by a nation that took him into their care, and had a
special responsibility for his care," said Mr. Merchant.

Merchant said he felt confident in the strength of the suit, but
said that many people who may have been affected by this
treatment may already be dead, and alleged that some may have
died because of the treatment they received.

"Correcting these wrongs, compensation for these wrongs, is
important and has to go forward very quickly."

Ear and nutrition experiments
The suit also alleges nutritional experiments were carried out on
students, without their consent, at residential schools in B.C.,
Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia.

Another 165 students from Cecilia Jeffrey School in Kenora, Ont.,
were used to test an experimental drug on children with ear
problems, with some suffering significant hearing loss, according
to the suit. [GN]


CANADA: '60s Scoops CA Lawsuit Hearings Start in Saskatoon
----------------------------------------------------------
Meaghan Craig, writing for Global News, reports that you can see
the exact second on Freda Angus face when the memories come
flooding back.

At just five-years-old she was snatched up while playing outside
of her family home was tossed in a van with her siblings. When
she begged government workers to tell her where they were going -
they didn't understand her because it was in Cree.

"When they came and got us, seven of my brothers and sisters,"
Angus sobbed.

"They took us to Onion Lake first, to white people and separated
us from there."

Between 1951 and 1991, thousands of Indigenous children
throughout the country were ripped from their families and all
they had ever known.

They were placed with non-Indigenous families in what would be
known as the so-called '60s Scoop.

Perry Boyko says he was taken directly from his mother's arms in
hospital and placed with a Ukrainian family, three days after he
was born.

He has two biological sisters he spent his childhood separated
from, his father passed away before the two could met and he
connected with his mom before she died.

"At first I felt anger, why did you do what you did?" said Boyko.

"But then she told me her story, that she wanted to keep me but
it was the social worker at the time who approached her father
and coerced him to tell his daughter to give me up."

On May 10, both Boyko and Angus sat in a hotel ballroom -- a
makeshift court gallery where a two-day federal court hearing is
underway in Saskatoon.

It will move to Toronto and a judge will decide if the $25,000 to
$50,000 is reasonable and fair compensation for survivors.

"The judge is determining whether he will approve this settlement
with the federal government and allow these amounts of money to
be settled and pay which will remove the federal government from
any liability," said lawyer Tony Merchant, Q C, Esq. --
info@merchantlaw.com

Under the proposed agreement the government would pay the fourth-
highest class action settlement in Canadian history. Up to $750
million in individual compensation would be given out and $50
million for a healing foundation led by survivors.

There has also been mixed reaction to this settlement as to
whether it's enough money, if lawyers should get a cut since four
legal teams working on the agreement are set to receive 15 per
cent of the minimum government payout.

Another objection is who is eligible for compensation; only
individuals who are status "Indian" as per the Indian Act or
"Inuit" outline documents are eligible to be claimants.

"In the lawsuit itself it states Indigenous, why are they
excluding the MÇtis when there's so many MÇtis that were also
scooped as well," Boyko. questioned.

No amount of money will ever right this wrong and the harm caused
to the victims. There is no Canadian legal precedent for the loss
of cultural identity and legal experts say the amount that is
laid out in the purposed settlement is more than could ever have
been won in court.

Angus said if she receives compensation, she knows how she would
spend it part of it.

"Maybe to go for treatments," said Angus, who sought counseling
six years ago.

"It just brings back all the memories."

As her voice trembled Angus admitted she may now be ready for
therapy to talk through some of her trauma and that her children
and grandchildren of her own have helped her heal.

"It helps a lot especially when they come for a visit --
sometimes keep them for more than I should," Angus said with a
smile. [GN]


CENTER FOR GOODS: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Center For Goods,
LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Center For Goods, LLC
doing business as: Roman and Williams Guild, NY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04591 (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Center For Goods, LLC is a home goods store in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Pet Food Contains Harmful Metals, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew D. Ficarelli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and
Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00361, (M.D.
Tenn., April 11, 2018), seeks all available remedies, damages and
awards as a result of violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Champion sells a variety of premium-priced dog foods throughout
the United States. Its dry dog food products are sold under the
"Orijen" and "Acana" brand names. Its packaging prominently
states that its products are "biologically appropriate" and
contain "fresh, regional ingredients" featuring fresh, raw or
dehydrated ingredients from minimally processed poultry, fish and
eggs. However, Plaintiff claims that they contain excessive
levels of harmful heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium,
and mercury. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin H. Sharp, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
      611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 434-7000
      Fax: (615) 434-7020
      Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

             - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 621-2000
      Fax: (312) 641-5504
      Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
             e.schork@barnowlaw.com


CLEAN HARBORS: "Metro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Trent Metro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services,
Inc. And Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-10702, (D. Mass., April 11, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Clean Harbors provides environmental, energy, and industrial
services. Metro worked as a Solid Control Tech. Metro and the
other workers like him regularly worked for Clean Harbors in
excess of 40 hours each week but never received overtime for
these hours, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
      Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
      GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
      585 Boylston St.
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 536-1800
      Fax: (617) 536-1802
      Email: pgordon@gordonllp.com
             khurley@gordonllp.com

             - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             rschreiber@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Campagna" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc. The case is styled as Teresa Campagna, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03039 (E.D. N.Y., May
23, 2018).

Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship
management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable
management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare
solutions. It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders,
disaster support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CNA FINANCIAL: Sued Over Bait-and-Switch Premium Increases
----------------------------------------------------------
A new class-action lawsuit accuses CNA Financial of illegally
raising premium costs for its long-term care insurance
policyholders in a nationwide scam that Hagens Berman attorneys
say served as a "bait-and-switch" to lure those looking to lower
their future insurance costs.

The lawsuit claims CNA enticed would-be customers with empty
promises of low, stable insurance premiums that would not
increase unless premiums increased for everyone of the same age
and coverage plan.  Despite its own promises, CNA increased the
premium of the lawsuit's plaintiff by 95 percent, and admitted
the increase was not uniform for everyone in the same age
category or premium class.

If you purchased or are insured under a CNA Casualty Company
policy for long-term care coverage or any other long term care
policy where your rates went up beyond what was represented, you
may be entitled to compensation for CNA's price increases.

"Thousands of customers have paid CNA for peace of mind, and paid
CNA for what it promised in its promotional materials: that
individual rates would not increase unless they increased for
everyone else in the same category," said Steve Berman, managing
partner of Hagens Berman.  "We believe CNA lured in would-be
customers with promises of fair and evenhanded premiums early in
life, only to single out people in certain states for massive
rate increases later when it is too late for them to find better
coverage elsewhere."

"What our client experienced is nothing short of bait-and-switch
tactics," Mr. Berman added.

The lawsuit was filed May 9, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois and seeks recovery for CNA's
long-term care insurance customers.

What CNA Financial Promised

When it marketed the Policy to plaintiff, CNA provided a brochure
that assured plaintiff and class members that the Policy would
provide long-term stability and that Plaintiff and other class
members would not be subject to disparate or discriminatory rate
increases, according to the lawsuit.

In the details of CNA's long-term care policy, the insurance
company promises its would-be customers they will not pay an
unequal share of overall premium costs, stating, "We cannot
change the Insured's premiums because of age or health.  We can,
however, change the Insured's premiums based on his or her
premium class, but only if We change the premiums of all other
Insureds in the same premium class."

In another part of the brochure, CNA says, ". . . for premiums to
change, CNA would have to change premiums for everyone in your
age category who has the kind of coverage plan that you do."

According to the lawsuit, customers expected that if premiums
increased they would not end up paying more than their peers
under the policy or bearing a disproportionate cost of the
overall risk.  "We believe this language clearly explains CNA's
empty promise and sales pitch that if someone age 70 in
Washington D.C. receives a premium increase, someone of the same
age and health across the country will be paying the same rate
for the same insurance benefits," Mr. Berman added.  "CNA failed
to uphold this."

What CNA Financial Policyholders Received

The lawsuit explains CNA's actual practices: "Rather than
obtaining peace of mind, these insureds suffer with the
uncertainty of future premium increases, the risk of long-term
care expenses that could arise, and the unavailability of
affordable coverage alternatives now that they have reached a
more advanced age."

Long-term care insurance pays for a variety of services for
people who are unable to care for themselves, and services may
include assistance in a home, adult day care center, an assisted
living facility, or nursing home.  Premiums for long-term care
coverage are generally set at the same level for a given age
category, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks rescission of their insurance contracts and
restoration of premiums paid or, in the alternative, declaratory
and injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.

Find out more about the lawsuit against CNA Financial for long-
term care insurance policyholders.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is
a consumer-rights class-action law firm with 11 offices across
the country.  The firm has been named to the National Law
Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. [GN]


CPE ROACHBUSTERS: Denied Breaks, OT Pay, "Fernandez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Fernandez, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. CPE Roachbusters Bugkillers of America, Inc. and
Juan A. Lopez, individually, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-21436,
(S.D. Fla., April 11, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

CPE Roachbusters provides commercial and residential pest control
and fumigation services in the areas of Miami-Dade, and Broward
County. Fernandez worked for CPE from on or about September 26,
2017 to November 14, 2017 as a driver and fumigator. Fernandez
worked from Monday to Friday, 5:00 AM to 5:00 PM or 60 hours
weekly. He claims that he was unable to take bona fide lunch
breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CREDITONE LLC: Martin Files Suit Over Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Martin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Creditone, LLC and John Does 1-
25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05878 (D. N.J., April 10, 2018),
seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, resulting from violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Martin incurred a credit card debt with Bank of America which was
then purchase by Creditone, LLC. Creditone sent the Plaintiff an
initial contact notice regarding the alleged debt owed that
falsely implied that no lawsuit could occur in the future and is
completely silent as to the rights of subsequent creditors or
debt collectors who could purchase the debt and could still
legally file a lawsuit against him, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com


DAVENPORT TURNBLAD: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Davenport, Turnblad
& Fishpaw LLC. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. Davenport, Turnblad & Fishpaw LLC doing
business as: Big Gay Ice Cream, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04573
(S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Big Gay Ice Cream is a New York City-based company that started
with an ice cream truck and now operates two New York City store
fronts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


DEJAVU INC: Faces "Mendizabal" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dejavu Inc. The
case is styled as Maria Mendizabal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dejavu Inc. doing
business as: Dejavu NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04588 (S.D.
N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Dejavu Inc. is a women's clothing store in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


DESOLEIL MANAGEMENT: "Jaen" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Damaris Barrera Jaen and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DeSoleil Management LLC, So. Beach Hotel LLC, Ramon Paraiso and
Rosario Antello, Case No. 18-cv-21413, (S.D. Fla., April 10,
2018), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

DeSoleil supplies property management services.  Plaintiff and
those similarly situated perform cleaning and maintenance for the
Defendants. Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per week but
was not compensated for all of these hours worked, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
      1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (786) 708-7550
      Fax: (786) 204-0844
      Email: rer@sorondorosenberg.com


DISH NETWORK: Do Not Call Class Action Settlement Payout Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KTBS reports that you could soon be on the receiving end of a
multi-million dollar class action settlement from Dish Network.

According to published reports, including from WRAL.COM, a jury
found that Dish Network violated consumer protection laws between
May 11, 2010 and August 1, 2011 by placing calls to telephone
numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.

A $61 million class action lawsuit has been filed that will pay
up to $1,200 to those who were called.

If you think you received a call, you can look up your phone
number at http://www.dishclassaction.com/[GN]


DIVURGENT LLC: Hatzey Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Alexander Hatzey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Divurgent, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 18-cv-00191, (E.D. Va., April 10, 2018), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation and prejudgment interest, liquidated and
exemplary damages, litigation costs, expenses, attorneys' fees
and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Divurgent provides information technology educational services
for the healthcare industry across the country. Hatzey worked for
Defendant as a Consultant providing support and training using a
new recordkeeping system to Divurgent's clients at Lahey Medical
Center in Boston. Divurgent allegedly misclassified Hatzey as an
independent contractor, thus he did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      Casey S. Nash, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Tel: (703) 424-7572
      Fax: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
             aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
             casey@kellyandcrandall.com

             - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net

             - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Goldstein" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Encore Receivable
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Tessa Goldstein, Kimberly
A. Hoffman, Eftihia Mitrakos and Crystal Gammone, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Encore Receivable Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03037 (E.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. provides collections
management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


EQUINOX COLLECTION: Faces "Reyes" Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equinox Collection
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Magda Reyes, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Equinox Collection Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00388-O (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2018).

Equinox Collection Services, Inc. founded in 2009, is an Oklahoma
collection agency that collects consumer debt for the medical
industry, such as hospitals, healthcare services, and physician
practices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (469) 677-7863
   Fax: (972) 380-8118
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on May 7, 2018, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Michigan against Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.  The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or
false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 22, 2017 through May 1, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above.  You may move the Court no later than July 6,
2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


ESRT OBSERVATORY: Faces "Conner" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESRT Observatory
TRS, L.L.C. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. ESRT Observatory TRS, L.L.C. doing business as:
Empire State Building, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04573 (S.D.
N.Y., May 23, 2018).

ESRT Observatory TRS, L.L.C. doing business as: Empire State
Building is a Skyscraper in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


EVERGREEN PRESBYTERIAN: "Robinson" Claims Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zelda Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc.
(d/b/a Evergreen Life Services), Case No. 18-cv-00247, (E.D.
Ark., April 11, 2018), seeks monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendant is a non-profit organization that provides support
services to individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities, including community-based housing and independent
living support, in eight states in the southeast United States,
including Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Florida and Georgia where Robinson worked as a
Caregiver out of their Benton AR, office. She regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per week without being paid overtime
premium. Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff for time spent
running errands, such as retrieving clients' prescription
medication from the pharmacy. Defendant automatically deducted
six hours from the hours worked of Caregivers who stayed
overnight attending to a client, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      Chris Burks, Esq.
      Daniel Ford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Collection of Text, Call Logs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that Facebook is facing a class action
lawsuit over the revelations that it logged text messages and
phone calls via its smartphone apps.

In the lawsuit filed in Facebook's home of the northern district
of California, the primary plaintiff, John Condelles III, states
that the social network's actions "presents several wrongs,
including a consumer bait-and-switch, an invasion of privacy,
wrongful monitoring of minors and potential attacks on privileged
communications" such as those between doctor and patient.

Facebook collected the logs of text messages and calls, including
the recipients and duration of the communications, through its
apps for Android including Messenger when users opted into being
able to send SMS from the app or give access to their contact
lists.

"Facebook has collected and stored information in a scope and
manner beyond that which users knowingly authorised. The practice
is ongoing," states the filing first reported by the Register.

The extent of the collection was revealed when users began
downloading and sifting through the data Facebook held on them
following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The plaintiffs allege that Facebook's collection of the data from
users' phones breaches California's Unfair Competition Law on
three counts -- including fraudulent business practice -- in
addition to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

The filing states: "The terms of service and privacy notice
materials do not inform (and in the past have not informed) the
ordinary and reasonably attentive Facebook user that installing
the application on a mobile device will result in the logging of
all the user's phone and text communications -- including
recipients, dates of communication, length of communication and
mode of communication -- on Facebook's servers for Facebook's own
use."

Until 2012, any Android application that could access contacts
could also access phone and text logs, but the operating system
did not explicitly notify users of that fact.

"By granting this access, Android users were also automatically
and unknowingly granting Facebook permission to 'scrape', or
automatically gather, Android users' call and text logs," states
the lawsuit. "In other words, Facebook scraped years' worth of
call and text data, including whether the call was 'incoming'
'outgoing', or 'missed;' the data and time of each call; the
number dialled; the individual called; and the duration of each
call."

Condelles is seeking at least $5m and to turn the suit into a
class action across the US.

Facebook is also facing a class action lawsuit from both British
and US lawyers as part of a case against the social network,
Cambridge Analytica and two other companies for allegedly
misusing the personal data of 71 million people.

Facebook did not immediately respond to request for comment.[GN]


FCA RESTAURANT: "Mesias" Suit Brought Before NY Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Howard Mesias, obo himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA Restaurant Group LLC
dba Denny's, Defendant, Case No. 611068/2017 was brought before
the New York Supreme Court on May 25, 2018.

FCA Restaurant Group LLC dba Denny's is a table service diner-
style restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C., Esq.
   1613 NORTHERN BLVD.
   ROSLYN, NY 11576
   Tel: (516) 625-0105

The Defendant is represented by:

   DARRELL J. CONWAY, P.C., Esq.
   179 LITTLE EAST NECK ROAD
   BABYLON, NY 11702
   Tel: (631) 669-0001


FLEX LTD: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on May 8 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California (Docket Number
3:18-cv-02706), on behalf of all purchasers of Ordinary Shares
(or "shares") of Flex Ltd. ("Flex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
FLEX) between January 26, 2017 and April 26, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Flex investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from
the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

Investors that suffered losses on their Flex investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit the Flex case page on our
website at www.glancylaw.com/case/flex-ltd.

On April 26, 2018, Flex issued a press release disclosing
allegations by a former employee that the Company improperly
accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain
related reserves.  The Company further announced that its Audit
Committee was undertaking an investigation of the matter with the
assistance of independent outside counsel.

On this news, Flex's share price fell $3.61, or 21.7%, to close
at $13.03 per share on April 27, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially weak and deficient; (2) that the Company had
improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and
certain related reserves; and, (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants'
statements about Flex's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you acquired shares of Flex during the Class Period you have
60 days from May 8, 2018, the date of this notice to file a lead
plaintiff motion to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.  If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased. [GN]


FLOWERS FOODS: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP is investigating
whether certain officers and directors of Flowers Foods, Inc.
(NYSE: FLO) breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders.
Flowers Foods produces and markets bakery products in the United
States.

Investors filed a class action complaint against Flowers Foods
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016.  The complaint
alleges that Flowers Foods' business model, which relies on the
misclassification of distributors as independent contractors,
exposed the company to existential risk and made the company's
statements about its business, operations, and prospects false
and misleading.  Flowers revealed in August 2016 that the U.S.
Department of Labor ("DOL") notified the company that it was
scheduled for a compliance review under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  If the DOL finds Flowers in violation of the FLSA,
Flowers could reportedly be liable for up to $1 billion in back
wages, penalties, fines, and health care.  On March 23, 2018, the
Honorable W. Louis Sands of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division denied in part
Flowers Foods' motion to dismiss, paving the way for litigation
to proceed.

Flowers Foods Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about
their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid
Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via
the shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped
its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested. [GN]


FLUSHING BANK: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flushing Bank. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flushing Bank, Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-04592 (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Flushing Bank, a state-chartered bank, provides banking services
for consumers, businesses, and public entities in New York. It
offers consumer banking services, including checking, savings,
money market, and individual retirement accounts, as well as
certificates of deposit; and retirement planning, tax-deferred
investing, education planning, and estate planning services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


FRED A. COOK: Faces "Brininger" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred A. Cook, Jr.,
Inc. The case is styled as Philip Brininger, on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Fred A. Cook, Jr., Inc.
and Brian F. Cook, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-
04579 (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Fred A. Cook, Jr., Inc. offers septic system service in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FRITO-LAY INC: Settles Suit Over Improper Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News Blog, reports that on
April 12, 2018, Frito-Lay Inc. -- a subsidiary of PepsiCo --
agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit that
claimed the snack food manufacturer violated the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act (ICRAA), and the California Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act (CCRAA) by using improper disclosure forms for
background checks.

The FCRA requires employers to use certain documents and to
follow specified policies and practices when they use background
checks to assess the qualifications of prospective and current
employees.  Pursuant to FCRA section 1681b, no one run background
checks for employment purposes without providing a "clear and
conspicuous disclosure . .  . in a document that consists solely
of the disclosure."

A plaintiff may be entitled to statutory and punitive damages if
a defendant willfully violates the FCRA: "any person who
willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this
subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that
consumer in an amount equal to the sum of . . . damages of not
less than $100 and not more than $1000 . . . such amount of
punitive damages as the court may allow."

Under the California ICRAA, when an employer obtains an
"investigative consumer report" with information on a consumer's
character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode
of living, the employer must provide "a clear and conspicuous
disclosure in writing to the consumer at any time before the
report is procured or caused to be made in a document that
consists solely of the disclosure."

The lawsuit claimed the disclosure forms in effect during the
class periods from January 12, 2015, to November 7, 2016, (for
Frito-Lay frontline non-exempt positions) and from January 12,
2015, to December 15, 2016 (for Frito-Lay salaried/exempt
positions) violated the stand-alone disclosure requirement by
containing extraneous information such as online links to
marketing web pages.

A class of 38,174 job applicants will share the settlement if it
receives court approval.  The lawsuit also named Frito-Lay's
parent company, PepsiCo, and its background check vendor.  The
settlement in Chism v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay, Inc.,
Case 3:17-cv-00152-VC, in the United States District Court
Northern District of California, is available at
www.esrcheck.com/file/Chisum-v-Frito-Lay-Settlement.pdf.

The fact that employers are still being targeted by class action
lawsuits involving the FCRA even after the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in the case of Spokeo v. Robins that plaintiffs must prove
"concrete injury" for alleged "bare" violations of a federal
statute like the FCRA to obtain Article III standing is one of
the "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2018 selected by
Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR).

"In no way did the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean
employers could relax obligations for FCRA compliance," explains
ESR founder and CEO Attorney Lester Rosen, author of 'The Safe
Hiring Manual,' a comprehensive guide to employment background
checks.  "Employers must ensure they comply with the FCRA and
work with a background screening firm that understands the FCRA
inside and out." [GN]


GENERAL DYNAMICS: Mills Seeks Wages for Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Devina Mills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Dynamics Information Technology,
Inc. and General Dynamics Corp., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00855, (M.D. Fla., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages
for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. is a government
contractor which, among many other services, operates over 11
call centers in various states, including Florida, Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Utah, and
Virginia. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Dynamics
Corp.

Mills worked for Defendants as a customer service representative
at their call center located in Riverview, Florida since on or
about August 2014. General Dynamics allegedly failed to
accurately track or record all of the actual hours worked and
failed to provide Mills with a way to accurately record the hours
they actually worked. Defendants required reps to work before
they even "clocked in", says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Troy Kessler, Esq.
      Garrett Kaske, Esq.
      Tana Forrester, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 499-9100
      Fax: (631) 499-9120
      Email: tkessler@shulmankessler.com
             gkaske@shulmankessler.com
             tforresrer@shulmankessler.com


GILEAD SCIENCES: California HIV Patients File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation on May 9 disclosed that two sets
of California patients living with HIV filed a personal injury
lawsuit and a separate class action lawsuit against Gilead
Sciences Inc. seeking to hold the Bay Area drug maker accountable
for actions around its failure to rectify a known defect in
tenofovir disoproxil fumarate's (TDF's) drug formulation, knowing
a safer alternate, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) existed; failure
to warn patients of the damaging side effects of TDF; and active
misrepresentation of TDF's efficacy and risks.

Plaintiffs bring these lawsuits because Gilead should be
accountable for making misrepresentations about the significant
side effects of its key HIV drug, TDF, while it shelved a safer
alternative in TAF for many years simply to increase profits.

The legal actions, prepared by Rutherford Law attorney Michelle
M. Rutherford and in-house counsel for AHF, were filed in
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, [Case No. BC702302, Personal Injury Claims; and Case No.
BC 705063, Class Action Status], and each demands a jury trial.
AHF is funding the litigation and providing pro bono counsel and
will not receive any financial recovery from the lawsuit in
excess of its actual costs.

Both civil cases assert that Gilead's zeal to maintain and
maximize its corporate profits came at the expense of the health
and wellbeing of its customers who were prescribed and taking
TDF, which, according to the pleadings, the company knew as far
back as 2001 from its own studies and other research was, ' . . .
. highly toxic in the doses prescribed and risked permanent and
possibly fatal damage to the kidneys and bones.'

The cases also assert that Gilead deliberately and maliciously
suppressed from the market its alternate and newer formulation of
the drug, TAF, in order to extend the patent life -- and sales --
of its existing medications that included TDF. Gilead earned over
$18 billion in net profit in 2015.

"A company I trusted with my life took advantage of that trust by
misrepresenting the side effects of TDF, calling it the 'Miracle
Drug' and using other deceptive marketing strategies.  Gilead
shelved a far safer drug, TAF, simply to increase its long term
profits.  I'm bringing this lawsuit to try to hold Gilead
responsible for their reckless focus on profits over patient
safety," said Michael Lujano, one of the plaintiffs in the
personal injury action.

"For far too long big pharma has been abusing the financial and
legal benefits they've been given under the guise of fostering
research and development.  These lawsuits, however, make clear
that Gilead's perverse motive of outsized profits and increased
market share is not in line with patient health and safety. Under
these circumstances, the laws must be read to protect public
health from corporate greed," said Liza Brereton of AHF, attorney
for plaintiffs.

"Plaintiffs bring these lawsuits because Gilead should be
accountable for making misrepresentations about the significant
side effects of its key HIV drug, TDF, while it shelved a safer
alternative in TAF for many years simply to increase profits,"
said Michelle M. Rutherford of Rutherford Law, attorney for
plaintiffs.

Personal Injury Claims Against Gilead

The personal injury action against Gilead asserts claims for: 1)
Strict Products Liability - Design Defect and Failure to Warn; 2)
Negligent Products Liability - Design Defect and Failure to Warn;
3) Breach of Implied Warranty, and; 4) Breach of Express
Warranty.

Regarding the potential harm caused by TDF, the personal injury
claim asserts that:

"FDA twice issued warning letters to Gilead over its TDF
marketing practices, stating that their sales representatives had
violated the law by giving doctors and patients false and
misleading information regarding TDF's side effects.  According
to a 2002 FDA Warning Letter, Gilead salespeople falsely stated
that TDF had 'no toxicities' was 'benign' and was 'extremely
safe.' A 2003 FDA Warning Letter took the uncommon step of
requiring Gilead to retrain its sales representatives to provide
accurate information regarding the significant side effects
associated with TDF and comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 352."

It also noted that:

"Gilead had a duty to share its exclusive knowledge of the risks
associated with TDF. Gilead failed to do this.  Instead, Gilead
misrepresented the safety and benefits of TDF and failed to
provide prescribing physicians and their patients with the
information they needed to safely and reasonably prescribe and
take Gilead's drugs."

And that:

". . . studies showed that TAF was far less toxic and confirmed
that TDF's low absorption, high dosage, and potential bone and
renal toxicity were real risks. But, Gilead did not publish this
research, did not conduct clinical trials of TAF, did not change
its prescribing information, and did not instruct its sales
representatives to begin informing doctors that the toxicities
associated with TDF could be eliminated with a new, better drug."

Surprisingly, in October 2004, Gilead's CEO John C. Martin
announced, "the company is discontinuing its development program
for TAF."  However, ". . . Gilead did not discontinue development
of TAF.  Instead, between October 2004 and May 2005, Gilead
applied for seven patents associated with it."

Gilead knew that continuing to sell TDF risked permanent and
possibly fatal damage to the kidneys and bones in patients
prescribed and taking the drug.  It also knew that its newer,
alternate version, TAF, would reduce the risk of toxicity and
damage to kidney and bones.

California Class Action Claims Against Gilead

Two other Californians living with HIV -- each of whom has taken
TDF for many years with subsequent and related health deficits --
have filed a class action lawsuit against Gilead on behalf of:

"All persons located within California who were prescribed and
ingested Viread, Truvada, or Atripla from October 26, 2001,
through the present, who were personally or whose physician was
exposed to Gilead's misrepresentations."

The lawsuit asserts:
"After learning that TAF had a higher absorption rate and largely
avoided the bone and kidney toxicity associated with TDF, Gilead
shelved its development of TAF and instead kept HIV infected
patients and their doctors in the dark about the true risks
associated with TDF, along with the solution to those risks, for
over a decade.  In 2014, as Gilead's patent on TDF approached its
expiration and Gilead faced a sharp decrease in profits that
would result from competition entering the market for TDF-
containing drugs, Gilead decided to release the results of the
TAF studies it began conducting in 2001."

It also asserts:
"Viread's original prescribing information and patient
information sheet said little about the severe risk of toxicity
in kidneys and concomitant risk of bone mineral density loss. The
boxed warning for Viread has never mentioned TDF toxicity, bone,
or kidney risks.  And, the current label still only recommends
assessment of bone mineral density for patients with a history of
fracture or other risk factors for osteoporosis or bone loss."

And that:
"Gilead's prescribing information and patient information sheets
for Truvada did little to correct the tide of misrepresentations
unleashed by its sales force and CEO only months before Truvada's
launch into the market in 2004.  Truvada's prescribing
information failed to correct prior misrepresentations regarding
the safety and efficacy of TDF and continued to misrepresent and
minimize the risk of toxicity and bone and kidney damage.  Where
Gilead did list potential patient concerns, it misrepresented the
risks as primarily for already-renally impaired or bone-
compromised patients."

Previous Federal Lawsuit on Gilead and Tenofovir TDF/TAF

AHF filed a separate and previous legal action in federal court
in 2016 seeking to hold Gilead accountable for its misdeeds and
misrepresentations regarding TDF and TAF.  That lawsuit is
currently pending in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in
Washington D.C. as Case No. 16-2475.

In May 2016, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page
article, "A question of timing: A lawsuit claims Gilead Sciences
could have developed a less-harmful version of its HIV treatment
sooner" by reporter Melody Petersen that was prompted in part by
the lawsuit.

In an astounding revelation in her 2016 article, Petersen
reported:

"In stark language contained in a recent court filing, the
company's (Gilead) lawyers said the firm 'had no duty to develop,
test, seek approval of, or launch its new product on any
particular timetable.'"

              About AIDS Healthcare Foundation

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) -- http://www.aidshealth.org--
is the largest global AIDS organization.  It currently provides
medical care and/or services to over 894,000 individuals in 39
countries worldwide in the US, Africa, Latin America/Caribbean,
the Asia/Pacific Region and Eastern Europe. [GN]


GOMEZ DRYWALL: "Murillo" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Murillo (a/k/a Erick Vazquez), on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gomez
Drywall Contractors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03753 (E.D.
La., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Murillo worked for Gomez Drywall as a general laborer, framing
the building, hauling metal beams and assisting the installation
of drywall material. Plaintiff worked more than 55 hours per week
without being paid the overtime rate, according to the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      George B. Recile, Esq.
      Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
      Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
      Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
      Matthew A. Sherman, Esq.
      CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY
      RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P.
      One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Telephone: (504) 833-5600
      Facsimile: (504) 613-4528


GGP INC: Lowinger Files Suit Over Sale to Brookfield
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Lowinger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sandeep Mathrani, Richard
Clark, Mary Lou Fiala, J. Bruce Flatt, Janice R. Fukausa, John K.
Haley, Daniel B. Hurwitz, Brian W. Kingston, Christina M .
Lofgren, GGP, Inc., Brookfield Property Partners L.P. and
Goldfinch Merger Sub Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2018-0272 (Del.
Ch., April 11, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating,
or closing the acquisition of GGP, Inc. by affiliates of
Brookfield Property Partners, L.P. through Goldfinch Merger Sub
Corp., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.   The
Plaintiffs further seek costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

GGP shareholders will be entitled to elect to receive, for each
GGP common share, either $23.50 in cash or either one Brookfield
unit or one share of a new Brookfield U.S. real estate investment
trust security, subject to proration. Merger agreement provides
for a 'no solicitation' clause that prevents GGP from soliciting
alternative proposals and constrains its ability to negotiate
with potential buyers, says the complaint. Plaintiff claims that
the consideration paid to the company's shareholders is
inadequate considering that the intrinsic value of the company is
more than the amount offered in the proposed mergers.

GGP is a real estate investment trust with properties that
include luxurious shopping malls with high rates of leased space.
Brookfield Property Partners is a commercial real estate company
with interests in multifamily, triple net lease, industrial,
hospitality, self-storage, student housing and manufactured
housing assets. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC
     919 N. Market Street, Suite 1801
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 330 8025
     Email: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com

            - and -

     Aaron Brody, Esq.
     Michael J. Klein, Esq.
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 687-7230
     Email: abrody@ssbny.com
            mklein@ssbny.com


HCC MEDICAL: Faces "Bryant" Class Suit in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a non-certified class action complaint entitled, Bryant et al. v.
HCC Medical Insurance Services, LLC, et al.

In January 2018, the Company was named as a defendant in a non-
certified class action complaint styled as Aliquo, et al. v. HCC
Medical Insurance Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-cv-18, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ("Aliquo
case"). The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on March 9,
2018. Prior to hearing on the Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs'
counsel amended the complaint substituting in new plaintiffs
named Bryant and Delgado. As such, the complaint was restyled as
Bryant et al. v. HCC Medical Insurance Services, LLC, et al. with
the same case number.

The Company and other defendants will likely respond with motions
to dismiss on procedural grounds. Similar to other cases
involving the conduct of independent insurance carriers and
independent sales agencies, the allegations revolve largely
around the conduct of independent insurance carriers related to
the claims handling, processing, and resolution process, though
the complaint also alleges that potentially deceptive sales
practices and unfair trade practices or misrepresentations may
also have occurred.

The Bryant case, which largely attempts to bring claims under the
RICO Act, seeks to link the Company's marketing efforts to the
independent carriers' conduct of alleged improper claims
handling, post-claims underwriting, and denials despite the
Company being uninvolved in any of these listed activities.

In fact, with at least one of the newer plaintiffs (Delgado), it
seems that the Company had no relationship. An additional claim
for breach of contract is alleged solely against the independent
insurance carriers.

Health Insurance said, "The Company will continue to assert that
it doesn't engage in post- claims underwriting or claims handling
as complained of in the case. While it is possible that a loss
may arise from this case, the amount of such loss is not known or
estimable at this time."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family
health insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United
States. The company is based in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH INSURANCE: June 15 Initial Mediation in "Hicks" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself from suits relating to alleged violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Company has received a number of private-party claims
relating to alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") by its independently owned and operated
licensed-agent distributors, alleging that their marketing
activities were potentially unlawful. The Company has been named
as a defendant in multiple lawsuits relating to alleged TCPA
matters, including claims styled, but not yet certified, as class
actions.

There are three primary cases filed in the courts by Plaintiffs
Craig Cunningham, Kenneth Moser, and Amandra Hicks, each styled
as a class action but not yet certified, and each Plaintiff
alleging or seeking damages ranging from $160,000 to over
$5,000,000. The Company is defending these claims and has filed
motions to dismiss or the equivalent in each matter.

On February 13, 2018, the Company successfully obtained a
dismissal from the Cunningham case however, Cunningham refiled
his complaint and the second case was dismissed on March 1, 2018.
Making a third attempt, Cunningham refiled his complaint on April
16, 2018, in a now-third venue, the Middle District of Florida.

In the Moser case, on April 19, 2018, a court-ordered Early
Neutral Evaluation occurred with all parties in attendance.
Settlement discussions were unproductive and the magistrate judge
set the schedule for discovery. In Hicks, the case is proceeding
to an initial mediation presently set for June 15, 2018.

A similar case, known as Foote, was filed on March 22, 2018, and
also styled but not yet certified as class action. The Company is
reviewing the matter and its response is not yet due. While these
types of claims have previously settled, been dismissed, or
resolved without any material effect on the Company, there is a
possibility in the future that one or more could have a material
effect.

Health Insurance said, "While it is possible that a loss may
arise from these cases, the amount of such loss is not known or
estimable at this time. The Company requires that its
independently owned and operated licensed-agent distributors
reimburse or indemnify it for any such settlements."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family
health insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United
States. The company is based in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that a consolidated
securities class action remains pending against the company.

In September 2017, three putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers.  The cases were styled
Cioe Investments Inc. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-05316-
NG-ST, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on September 11, 2017; Michael Vigorito v. Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael
Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on September 13,
2017; and Shilpi Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Patrick McNamee, Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case
No. 8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on September 21, 2017.

All three Securities Actions were filed after a decline in the
trading price of the Company's common stock following the release
of a report authored by a short-seller of the Company's common
stock raising questions about, among other things, the Company's
public disclosures relating to the Company's regulatory
examinations and regulatory compliance. All three of the
Securities Actions, which were based substantially on the
allegations raised in the short-seller report, contained
substantially the same allegations, and alleged that the Company
made materially false or misleading statements or omissions
relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly regarding
to the Company's application for a third-party administrator
license in the State of Florida.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.). On February 6, 2018, the court
appointed Robert Rector as lead plaintiff and appointed lead
counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on
March 23, 2018.

The consolidated complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a
defendant and added Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets
forth the same factual allegations as the initially filed
Securities Actions filed in September 2017 and adds allegations
relating to alleged materially false statements and omissions
relating to the regulatory proceeding previously initiated
against the Company by the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of
Securities and Insurance (the "CSI"), which proceeding was
dismissed on October 31, 2017 in light of CSI's decision to join
the Indiana Multistate Examination. The complaint also adds
allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Kosloske and
Hershberger.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
According to the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs in the
action are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of
individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock on periods ending September 11, 2017.

The Company's response to the consolidated complaint was due on
May 7, 2018. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
claims. However, at this time, it cannot predict the probable
outcome of this action, and, accordingly, no amounts have been
accrued in the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements.

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family
health insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United
States. The company is based in Tampa, Florida.


HYATT HOTELS: Faces Illinois Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing a putative class
action suit in the federal district court in Illinois.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district
court in Illinois seeking an unspecified amount of damages and
equitable relief for an alleged violation of the federal
antitrust laws.

The Company disputes the allegations and will defend its
interests vigorously.

Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate
outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operation, or
liquidity."

Hyatt Hotels Corporation provides hospitality and other services
on a worldwide basis through the development, ownership,
operation, management, franchising, and licensing of hospitality
and wellness related businesses. The company is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


IDAHO: Suit Targets Public School Fees Statewide
------------------------------------------------
Betsy Z. Russel, writing for Idaho Press Tribune, reports that
former Idaho Supreme Court Justice Robert Huntley filed a class-
action lawsuit in federal court on May 10 against every school
district and charter school in Idaho, seeking to get them to stop
charging $20 million a year in student fees that already have
been ruled unconstitutional.

Huntley pressed a similar lawsuit in 2012, but a court limited it
to just the West Ada School District, and just to Huntley's named
client at the time, former Nampa schools Superintendent Russ
Joki, whose grandchild was being charged the fees. Huntley and
Joki won the case, the district stopped charging the fees, and it
refunded $200 to Joki -- but other school districts around the
state continued charging the fees, for everything from
kindergarten to junior class fees to chemistry class materials.

"It's very frustrating," Huntley told the Idaho Press-Tribune.
"That's why I wanted to file this suit to finally get their
attention."

He said he's heard of one large school district in North Idaho at
which school board members have acknowledged the fees they're
charging are unconstitutional, but taken the position that
they'll keep charging them until a court tells them to stop.

Huntley earlier filed separate lawsuits in Pocatello and Idaho
Falls.

"I've had two district judges say they won't give me class
certification," he said. "It's a much cleaner case and much
easier case in the federal court, if it will take federal
jurisdiction and do it. I'm now asking for a class action on
behalf of all of the students and parents in all of Idaho."

In 2012, 4th District Judge Richard Greenwood ruled that charging
the fees violates the Idaho Constitution's guarantee of "public,
free common schools."

"The question here is whether the defendant is providing a
general, thorough and free education to Peyton Joki," the judge
ruled. "The Court concludes it is not. . . . Where a class is
offered as part of the regular academic courses of the school,
the course must be offered without charge."

In the new federal lawsuit, named plaintiffs are two Pocatello
parents and four of their children, a recent Pocatello high
school graduate, and an Idaho Falls mom and two of her children.

The suit is filed on behalf of them and "all similarly situated
patrons and students in the 115 public school districts and
approximately 50 charter schools in the state of Idaho."

The state itself is not named as a defendant. Huntley tried to
sue the state in his original 2012 lawsuit, but courts removed
the state as a defendant, citing a 1996 law that insulated the
state from such claims, in response to an earlier, far-reaching
lawsuit that Huntley pressed over Idaho's overall school funding
system.

The new lawsuit charges that the fees violate the Fifth and 14th
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, taking private property
without due process of law or just compensation. It seeks refund
of all such fees paid since 2012; punitive damages; and
compensation for "reasonable" attorney fees.

It also notes that the Idaho Supreme Court ruled back in 1970
that charging fees for students to attend Idaho's public schools
violated the state Constitution.

Huntley, who was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1988 and
also is a former state representative and former Pocatello city
councilman, maintains Idaho is underfunding its schools by some
$700 million a year -- and that's pushing school districts to
impose the fees to help make up the gap.

"School leaders and patrons should insist that the governor and
the Legislature honor their constitutional duty to properly fund
education," Huntley said. "We are hopeful this lawsuit will give
them the impetus to do so."

Huntley served as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court from 1982
to 1989.[GN]


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settles Acne Drug Class Action for $20MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reports that Acne
sufferers are often willing to pay big bucks for treatments that
promise clear skin. Now, some pharmaceutical companies are being
sued for how they marketed one acne product, Solodyn.

The lawsuit claims that Impax Laboratories, Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., Sandoz Inc., and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc.
violated state competition and unjust enrichment laws by agreeing
not to compete with one another and keep low-cost generic
versions of the drug Solodyn off the market.

The companies deny the claims.  No one is claiming that the drug
is ineffective or unsafe.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. has agreed to pay $20 million in a
Settlement Fund that will cover the cost of claims in the
lawsuit.  The settlement is in addition to the $23 million
announced with Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.

The Class Counsel will ask the court to award attorneys' fees in
an amount not exceeding one-third of the settlement fund, plus
litigation expenses, interest and incentive payments to the Class
Representatives.  The remainder of the fund will be distributed
to Class Members who file a valid claim.

The amount of money received will depend on how much customers
paid for Solodyn or a generic version of the drug.  Claims are
only valid for purchases of the drug or a generic version between
July 23, 2009 and February 25, 2018.  Those who paid a flat copay
to purchase the drug will not be eligible for the settlement.
Those who purchased the drug through Medicaid are also ineligible
for a claim.

Eligible doses include: 45mg, 55mg, 65mg, 80mg, 90mg, 105mg,
115mg, and 135mg.

Claims must be submitted by July 31, 2018.  Eligible Class
Members can submit a comment or objection to the proposed
settlement, but most do so by June 18, 2018.

A hearing is slated to be held by July 18, 2018 to consider
whether the terms of the settlement are fair, adequate and
reasonable. [GN]


INNERWORKINGS INC: July 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against InnerWorkings, Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities between August 11, 2015
and May 7, 2018, inclusive.

IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Shareholders who purchased InnerWorkings
securities during the Class Period may, no later than July 9,
2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the investor class.  Investors are encouraged to visit
www.kaskelalaw.com/case/innerworkings to receive additional
information about this action.

On May 7, 2018, InnerWorkings disclosed that it was "postponing
the release of its first quarter 2018 financial results and
conference call due to errors in its historical financial
statements identified during the course of its first quarter
financial reporting close process."  Additionally, the Company
disclosed that it "will be restating its financial statements for
the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, and all
interim periods within those years."

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $0.62
per share, or over 6.4%, to close on May 8, 2018 at $9.08, on
heavy trading volume.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that InnerWorkings
and certain of its senior executive officers made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) InnerWorkings' financial statements for fiscal years
2015, 2016 and 2017 contained errors that required restating; and
(ii) InnerWorkings' financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.  The complaint further
alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased
InnerWorkings's securities at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period and sustained investment losses following the
Company's May 7, 2018 disclosures.

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         201 King of Prussia Road
         Suite 650
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 258-1585
                    (888) 715-1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


JACKSONVILLE BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on May 9 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on behalf of holders of Jacksonville
Bancorp, Inc. ("Jacksonville") (NASDAQ:JXSB) common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Jacksonville by CNB
Bank Shares, Inc. ("CNB") announced on January 18, 2018 (the
"Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Jacksonville and its
Board of Directors (the "Board"), is captioned Parshall v.
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00889-RDB (D. Md.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra
at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail
at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On January 17, 2018, Jacksonville entered into an agreement and
plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with CNB.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Jacksonville
will receive $33.70 in cash for each share of common stock of
Jacksonville they hold (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
preliminary proxy statement and subsequent definitive proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges that
the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to,
among other things, Jacksonville's financial projections, the
analyses performed by Jacksonville's financial advisor, and the
background of the Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders
of Jacksonville common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than July 9, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and
San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. --
http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved
substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases
nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions,
shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
[GN]


KEMET CORP: Five River Sues Over Sherman Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kemet Corporation, Kemet
Electronics Corporation, Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata
Electronics North America, Inc., NEC Corporation, Okaya Electric
Industries Co, Ltd, Okaya Electric America Inc., Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic
Electronic Devices Co. Ltd, Panasonic Electronic Devices
Corporation of America, Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd., Sanyo North
America Corporation, Sumida Corporation, Sumida Electric Co.,
Ltd., Sumida America Components, Inc., Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.,
Taiyo Yuden (U.S.A.) Inc., TDK Corporation, TDK-Epc Corporation,
TDK Corporation of America, TDK U.S.A. Corporation, Tokin
America, Inc. and Tokin Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-
02175 (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2018), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations
of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

KEMET Corporation was set up in 1919 and now is based in
Simpsonville, South Carolina. The company produces many kinds of
capacitors, such as tantalum, aluminum, multilayer ceramic, film,
paper, polymer electrolytic, and supercapacitors.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
       STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
       550 West C Street, Suite 1750
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Tel: (619) 400-5822
       Fax: (619) 400-5832
       Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

              - and -

       Daniel Karon, Esq.
       KARON LLC
       700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite. 200
       Cleveland, OH 44113
       Tel: (216) 622-1851
       Email: dkaron@karonllc.com


LAMPS PLUS: Supreme Court to Decide on Arbitration Issue
--------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, wrote that the Supreme Court recently
granted certiorari in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988. The
question presented in the petition for certiorari is: "Whether
the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation
of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class
arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in
arbitration agreements."

The Court will review the Ninth Circuit's unpublished decision in
Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 16-56085 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017),
which affirmed the district court's order compelling a class-wide
arbitration. The Ninth Circuit opinion explained that the Supreme
Court's decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l
Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010) "accepted the parties' stipulation
that silence meant 'there's been no agreement that has been
reached," and concluded that the fact that an arbitration clause
"does not expressly refer to class arbitration is not the
'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen." The arbitration clause
at issue provided that "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and
all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings relating to my
employment." The Ninth Circuit held that "[a] reasonable -- and
perhaps the most reasonable -- interpretation of this expansive
language is that it authorizes class arbitration." (Emphasis in
original.) The Ninth Circuit further concluded that, where the
court found two reasonable interpretations of the agreement, it
was ambiguous, and should be construed against the defendant
based on California principles of contract construction. Judge
Fernandez dissented, stating simply that in his view the
agreement was not ambiguous, and that the plaintiff's position
was a "palpable evasion" of Stolt-Nielsen. The petition for
certiorari argues that the Ninth Circuit decision was contrary to
the Court's reasoning in Stolt-Nielsen as well as Oxford Health
Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013) (blog post) and AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (blog post).

The Court's decision in Lamps Plus is unlikely to impact
arbitration provisions that many companies currently have in use,
which specifically preclude a classwide arbitration procedure.
This case will be closely watched, however, by companies that
have issued contracts with arbitration provisions that do not
specifically preclude classwide arbitration. [GN]


LANCASTER GENERAL: Faces St. Luke's Hospital Suit in E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lancaster General
Hospital. The case is styled as St. Luke's Health Network, Inc.
doing business as: St. Luke's University Health Network, Saint
Luke's Hospital of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania doing business as: St.
Luke's University Hospital - Bethlehem Campus, St. Luke's
Quakertown Hospital, Carbon-Schuylkill Community Hospital doing
business as: St. Luke's Miners Memorial Hospital and Blue
Mountain Hospital, doing business as: St. Luke's Hospital-
Palmerton Campus individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lancaster General Hospital,
Lancaster General Health, University of Pennsylvania Health
System, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, John Doe 1
and John Doe 2, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02157-JLS (E.D.
Penn., May 22, 2018).

Lancaster General Health is a small health system in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. Founded in 1893 in a small home on Queen Street,
the hospital now stands in a 590-bed facility located at 555
North Duke Street in Lancaster.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   DOUGLAS J. MCGILL, Esq.
   WEBBER MCGILL LLC
   760 ROUTE 10, SUITE 104
   WHPPANY, NJ 07981
   Tel: (973) 739-9559
   Email: dmcgill@webbermcgill.com


LG&E & KU: Cane Run Environmental Claims Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
LG&E & KU Energy LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Company continues to defend itself
against the so-called Cane Run Environmental Claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and
common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. These
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs
and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations.

Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary
compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the Cane Run plant, which had three coal-
fired units retired in 2015. In their individual capacities,
these plaintiffs sought compensation for alleged adverse health
effects.

In July 2014, the court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one
Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort
claims. In November 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint removing the personal injury claims and removing
certain previously named plaintiffs. In February 2017, the
District Court issued an order dismissing PPL as a defendant and
dismissing the final federal claim against LG&E.

On April 13, 2017, the federal District Court issued an order
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law
claims and dismissed the case in its entirety.

LG&E & KU Energy LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on June 16, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Jefferson
Circuit Court, Kentucky, against LG&E regarding the state law
nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property
damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of
residents within one to three miles of the plant.

In its recent report, the Company said that proceedings are
currently underway regarding potential class certification, for
which a decision may occur in late 2018 or in 2019. PPL, LKE and
LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an estimate or
range of possible losses cannot be determined.

LG&E and KU Energy LLC supplies natural gas and electricity. The
Company generates electricity from coal, oil and gas, and hydro
energy sources. LG&E and KU operates in the United States.


LIVE NATION: Faces "Poser" Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is facing
a class action suit entitled, Kathryn A. Poser v. Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., et al.

In April 2018, a class action lawsuit, captioned Kathryn A. Poser
v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint asserts claims against the
Company and certain individual officers for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all persons
who acquired the Company's common stock during the alleged class
period of February 23, 2017 through March 30, 2018. The complaint
seeks damages allegedly caused by statements and/or omissions
pertaining to the Company's compliance with the terms of its
antitrust consent decree with the United States Department of
Justice related to its acquisition of Ticketmaster in 2010, as
well as its internal controls regarding compliance with the
consent decree.

The plaintiff claims the alleged misstatements and/or omissions
were materially misleading and operated to artificially inflate
the price paid for the Company's common stock during the alleged
class period, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Live Nation said, "Based on information presently known, the
Company does not believe that a loss is probable of occurring at
this time, and believes that the potential liability, if any,
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations. Considerable
uncertainty exists regarding the validity of the claims and
damages asserted against the Company. As a result, the Company is
currently unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
for this matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend this
action."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments. The company is based in Beverly Hills,
California.



LIVE NATION: Klein Law Firm Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that a
New York-based law firm has confirmed it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Live Nation on behalf of shareholders in the live
music giant.

The Klein Law Firm litigation relates to allegations that Live
Nation has breached the terms of the 'consent decree' agreement
it entered into with the US Department Of Justice back in 2010,
when the tour promoter and venue operator merged with
Ticketmaster.

How the different divisions of Live Nation interact in the US has
come under new scrutiny of late, especially since a New York
Times report which reckoned that DoJ officials are investigating
whether the live music firm is complying with its 2010
commitments.

That report also contained allegations from Live Nation's rivals
that Ticketmaster exploits its parent company's dominance in
touring to secure extra business.  Those are allegations strongly
denied by Live Nation, with Ticketmaster President Jared Smith
penning a lengthy response to the Times article.

The new class action seeks to represent investors who bought
shares in Live Nation between February 2017 and March 2018, ie
just before the publication of the Times report.

The law firm said in a statement that its legal action "alleges
that throughout the class period, defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) the company failed to abide by the terms of the consent
decree; (2) the company lacked adequate internal controls to
prevent a violation of the consent decree; (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the company's financial statements and statements
about Live Nation's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times".

The lawyers go on: "On April 1, 2018, the New York Times reported
that the US Department Of Justice is investigating whether
certain of Live Nation's business practices are in violation of a
consent decree negotiated in connection with the approval of Live
Nation's 2010 merger with Ticketmaster.  The article reported
that officials at the Department Of Justice 'have been reviewing
complaints that Live Nation . . . has used its control over
concert tours to pressure venues into contracting with its
subsidiary, Ticketmaster'".

It's not clear how many investors The Klein Law Firm is
representing or seeks to represent in this case.  It is
definitely encouraging additional class members to come forward.
It's statement added: "Shareholders have until June 18, 2018 to
petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to
share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead
plaintiff".

Klein isn't the first US law firm to say it is investigating the
consent decree allegations made against Live Nation with a view
to pursuing legal action on behalf of investors.  It remains to
be seen if this litigation gains any momentum. [GN]


LOBLAWS: $25 Gift Card Offer Ends, Class Actions Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that May 8 marks the
final day to apply for Loblaws' $25 gift card, offered as
compensation for the retailer's admitted part in a bread price-
fixing scandal.

Many Canadians report they're satisfied with their gift of free
groceries.  However, the end of the card program doesn't mark the
end of the retailer's troubles -- far from it.

For starters, Loblaws still faces multiple proposed class action
lawsuits targeting the retailer and alleged co-conspirators in
the scandal.

Loblaws has stated that it expects to subtract $25 from any
potential settlement payments to class action members who also
got a gift card.

However, in the case of a proposed class action in Ontario, a
Superior Court judge recently ruled that's not necessarily how it
will play out.

"Whether or not they get credit for the gift cards is an open
question," said lawyer Jay Strosberg -- jay@strosbergco.com --
who's involved in the Ontario suit.  "Loblaws doesn't get to
decide that issue.  The judge does."

Loblaws told CBC News that it has made it clear to customers that
applying for the gift card doesn't prevent people from
participating in class action lawsuits.

"Our $25 Loblaw Card is a genuine effort to put money back in our
customers' hands quickly," said spokesperson Kevin Groh in an
email to CBC News.

Swamped with case inquiries
In November, Mr. Strosberg's firm, Strosberg Sasso Sutts,
launched a $1-billion class action in Ontario representing
victims of the alleged bread price-fixing scandal.

The firm hopes to turn the Ontario suit into a national class
action that would represent anyone who purchased packaged bread
on or after 2001 in all provinces, except Quebec where a separate
suit has been filed.

Another firm, Merchant Law Group, is also pursuing a similar
national class action.

Mr. Strosberg says his office has already been swamped with
thousands of inquiries from people across the country.

"This case, out of any case I've ever dealt with, really hits
home, I think, with Canadians because everybody buys bread."

The Ontario suit alleges that Loblaws, Canada Bread and grocers
Sobeys, Walmart, Metro, and Giant Tiger colluded to artificially
inflate prices for packaged bread for about 16 years.

"The defendants were unjustly enriched," alleges the statement of
claim.

Sobeys, Giant Tiger and Walmart continue to deny any involvement.
Canada Bread said it's investigating the allegations and Metro
declined to comment.

More investigations
Meanwhile, Canada's Competition Bureau continues its
investigation into the same companies for alleged bread price-
fixing.

Loblaws is the only one to admit to any wrongdoing, and will
receive immunity from prosecution for co-operating with the
Bureau's investigation.

But it could face repercussions from Canada's privacy
commissioner on how it handled the gift card program. The
commissioner is investigating the retailer for asking some
customers to send a copy of their ID, such as a driver's licence,
before receiving a gift card.

Some affected customers, including Suzette Collins in Toronto,
were so upset by the request, they refused to comply and vowed to
boycott Loblaws stores.

"It's absolutely ludicrous," said Collins, who happens to work as
a privacy and access-to-information consultant.  "There's all
kinds of information on my driver's licence that they're not
entitled to for the purpose of fulfilling a gift card voucher."

Loblaws said any personal information sent will be protected, and
that the retailer needed to do the ID check to combat fraud.  "We
wanted to make sure the money was actually landing in our
customers' hands," said Groh.

Gift cards a success?
Many customers who weren't asked for ID received their gift card
with no hassle and report they're happy with the gesture.  "They
did the right thing," said Chris Dunstan in Stanley, N.B., who
bought groceries with his rebate.  "I am very satisfied with it."

Food industry expert Sylvain Charlebois believes that Loblaws'
card program was a smart move that helped prevent some customers
from losing faith in the retailer following the price-fixing
scandal.

"A price-fixing scheme which is overly complicated to understand
doesn't resonate all that well," says Mr. Charlebois, a professor
at Dalhousie University specializing in food distribution and
policy.

"Twenty-five bucks, that's very easy to understand."

Charlebois says it's too early to determine the overall success
of the program. But he believes a positive sign is that Loblaws'
had a good quarter: the company's profits grew to $377 million,
an increase of 62.5 per cent compared to the first quarter of
2017.

"When you look at financial results, it seems as though Loblaws
has done very well," he said.

Although pending lawsuits and investigations targeting Loblaws
continue, Mr. Charlebois says the retailer is also benefiting
from dwindling negative press about the price-fixing scandal and
gift card program.

"People will forget." [GN]


MARIO BATALI: Settles Staffers' Wage Violation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Serena Dai, writing for Eater New York, reports that Mario Batali
and Joe Bastianich are close to finalizing a settlement on yet
another wage violation lawsuit.  Mr. Batali, Mr. Bastianich, and
Lidia Bastianich, along with five of their NYC restaurants, have
agreed to pay out about $2.2 million after a former busser at
Felidia filed a class action suit late last year, according to a
public court documents.

About 1,300 front-of-house staffers at Batali and Bastianich
Hospitality Group restaurants Felidia, Esca, Becco, Del Posto,
and Babbo are eligible to get paid from the $2,150,000
settlement, which has not yet received final approval from a
judge.

Former busser Hector Jara filed the original suit in December
2017, accusing Felidia and its owners of not properly paying him
while he worked at the restaurant from October 2015 to January
2017.  He alleged that he often worked 55 hours a week but was
only paid for up to 45; he also claimed that his work exceeded
the legal limits of what tipped employees could do.  Mr. Jara
further accused a manager of disability discrimination, alleging
that he was fired following a doctor recommendation to avoid
lifting heavy items.

In court documents, the restaurants and owners denied the
allegations.  The Bastianichs and Mr. Batali did not admit fault
as part of the settlement agreement.

Though front-of-house staffers at Babbo will be able to be part
of the class, the settlement explicitly mentions that former
Babbo busser Octavio Quinones will not qualify for a payout.
Back in November, Mr. Quinones and prolific restaurant world
attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum separately sued Mr. Batali,
Mr. Bastianich, and Babbo for wage violations, also in attempt to
make it a class action.

That case is pending; Mr. Kirschenbaum tells Eater that they were
originally slated to go into mediation with Batali attorneys on
May 14.  He plans to contest this settlement's inclusion of
Babbo, which was added onto the suit the same day that the
settlement agreement was filed.  "We believe this was behavior
intended to shortchange the Babbo group, which they knew was
represented by us," Mr. Kirschenbaum says.

Carolyn Richmond, an attorney for B&B Hospitality Group and the
other defendants, said in a statement that the companies "did
nothing wrong and settled to avoid litigation costs":

This settlement involves a deeply flawed statute that imposes
$5,000-per-employee fines for paperwork violations that don't
actually harm any employee and are made by payroll companies.
It's become a plaintiff's lawyer job creation act, with lawsuits
flooding courts against 99% of NY restaurants.  Mr. Kirschenbaum
is in no position to object to a mediated and negotiated
settlement when his client wasn't involved in it or affected by
it.

Eater has also reached out to Mr. Jara's attorney, who did not
immediately respond to an email request for comment.

It's not the first time Mr. Kirschenbaum has gone up against the
Batali and Bastianich restaurants.  In 2012, he negotiated a
$5.25 million settlement with the crew, similarly following a
wage violation lawsuit.  The newer Babbo suit, which can be seen
here, also accuses the group of shortchanging staff on pay.

Mr. Batali is named in the suit, but shortly after Mr. Jara and
his attorney C.K. Lee filed the original complaint, the famous
chef stepped away from management of his restaurants following
sexual misconduct allegations.  Joe Bastianich remains at the
group, and Lidia Bastianich took on a bigger role.  Mr. Batali is
now in the process of divesting financially from the businesses.
[GN]


MDL 2741: "Pfleigier" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kerry Pfleigier, Plaintiffs, v. Monsanto
Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02149 (E.D. Mo., March 10,
2018), was consolidated with MDL No. 2741 filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on April
11, 2018.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert
fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting
this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief
resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate. Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or
glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and
unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper
warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its
use. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Seth S. Webb, Esq.
       BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C.
       One Metropolitan Square
       211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600
       St. Louis, MO 63102
       Tel: (314) 222-2222
       Fax: (314) 421-0359
       Email: sethw@getbc.com


MEMPHIS, TN: Faces Lawsuit on Untested Rape Kits
------------------------------------------------
Bridget Chapman, writing for Wreg 3, reports that rape victims
are still waiting to get justice as the lawsuit against the City
of Memphis for the thousands of untested rape kits moves forward.

Valencia Woodin is one of those victims. She was raped at a hotel
five years ago.

"To me, as a victim, it takes a lot of courage because we have to
relive the same wounds, the same scars and the same dreams and
nightmares basically," she said.

She's been hospitalized and put on medication to cope with the
trauma, even found herself homeless at one point.

Her rape kit was one of over 12,000 that went untested.

She's now part of the lawsuit against the city for the emotional
damage their negligence caused.

"Sometimes it not only takes out of ourselves, but it takes out
of our families as well as far as the support."

The lawsuit's been in the works for about four years.

The latest hurdle for the plaintiffs is getting it to be
considered a class action lawsuit.

Among other benefits, it would allow them to be awarded up to $10
million in damages rather than $700,000.

"We are crystal clear of a class action as is possible," attorney
Daniel Lofton, Esq., said.

However, the city of Memphis argues otherwise and has
continuously tried to get it dropped altogether.

On May 10, both sides reviewed the lawsuit with the judge.

She then asked for a new motion to be filed if plaintiffs want to
be considered for class action.

The judge has made it clear she wants to get this case moving by
setting the next hearing for the first of June.

"We are making progress. A complicated car wreck case can take
four or five years, so keep that in mind when you put it into
perspective," Lofton said.

Since filing it four years ago, Lofton thinks one person's really
helped prove their point so far.

"The deposition with Cody Wilkerson really kicked the door open
and set a very good tone for this case and we're going to
continue down that road," he said.

Cody Wilkerson's a former Memphis police lieutenant.

He retired in 2016 after several years of investigating rape
cases.

"They're very difficult cases to investigate," said Wilkerson.
"On top of that, sexual deviants, predators, they prey on the
weak and vulnerable, so they target prostitutes, they target
mental patients, they target drug addicts . . . because they can
get away with it."

His insight of what went wrong in the department could play a big
role in the lawsuit.

Although protocol is for detectives to meet with supervisors and
prosecutors before closing a case, Wilkerson said that often
didn't happen, which led to many of these rape kits not being
tested.

"The problem was a lack of supervision and a lack of oversight,
so a detective had the ability, not by policy and procedure, but
had the ability to close a case and move it into cyber space and
nobody would ever be the wiser of it," said Wilkerson.

He believes that's still happening today.

"So, today you think rapists are still slipping through the
cracks?" WREG's Bridget Chapman asked.

"Absolutely," he said.

Wilkerson said he hopes his voice and this lawsuit can bring
change.

The writer said they reached out to the Memphis Police Department
to see if policies for closing cases have changed since Wilkerson
was a lieutenant with them, but have not yet heard back.[GN]


MERIWETHER COUNTY: Faces "Poole" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meriwether County,
Georgia. The case is styled as David Poole, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Meriwether County,
Georgia, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00056-TCB (N.D. Ga., May 22,
2018).

Meriwether County is a county located in the west central portion
of the U.S. state of Georgia. As of the 2010 census, the
population was 21,992. The county seat is Greenville, home of the
Meriwether County Courthouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, P. FL
   600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: (954) 318-0268
   Fax: (954) 333-3515
   Email: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Mason" Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Latrice Mason,
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01050-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal., May 25,
2018).

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector,
assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations
through various education and payment plans. The company was
founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland
Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Glenn Beckom, Esq.
   Law Offices of Christopher Beckom
   1307 W. 6th Street, Suite 223
   Corona, CA 92882
   Tel: (909) 994-6735
   Email: cbeckom@beckomlaw.com


NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA: Paquette Gadler Files Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Paquette Gadler Inc. and Adams Avocat Inc.
disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against the
National Bank of Canada (the " National Bank ") for illegally
demanding from its clients fees for professional services (such
as legal fees, etc.) and to preserve the charged property (such
as management fees, etc.) in contravention, among others, of
article 2762 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

The members to which this class action relates are natural
persons and corporations that have:

contracted a movable or immovable mortgage with the National
Bank; and received notice of the exercise of a hypothecary
recourse following the granting of such a mortgage and was
required to pay the National Bank or its representatives fees for
professional services in connection with the recovery of the
capital or the interest secured by the mortgage or to preserve
the charged property, during the period from May 10, 2015 to the
date of the final judgment to be rendered in this proceeding.

For example, if you have a contracted a mortgage with the
National Bank, defaulted on your obligations pertaining to the
contract and received a notice of the exercise of a hypothecary
recourse (a " Notice of Default and collection ") and you have
had to pay the National Bank or its representatives legal fees
and/or management fees to correct your default as of May 10th
2015, you may be a part of the members of this class action.

You may also be in a similar situation if you have contracted a
mortgage from another financial institution and have been charged
such fees to correct your default.

You may voluntarily register for this class action on the
websites of the plaintiff's counsel listed below or obtain
further information by contacting us.

         Paquette Gadler Inc.
         353 Saint-Nicolas, Bureau 200
         Montreal. Quebec, H2Y 2P1
         Telephone: (514) 849-0771
         Email: paquettegadler.com  [GN]


NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in "Ubaldi" Wins Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-01320
(N.D. Cal., March 18, 2011), Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte signed on
May 29, 2018, a Final Approval Order and Judgment approving a
settlement in the case.  The court also entered an order
terminating the lawsuit.

Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that on March 18, 2011, an education loan
borrower filed a putative class action complaint against SLM
Corporation as it existed prior to the Spin-Off ("Old SLM") in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint was captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et
al. The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a putative
class consisting of other similarly situated California
borrowers.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's
practice of charging late fees that were proportional to the
amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in
violation of California law and that Old SLM engaged in unfair
business practices by charging daily interest on private
educational loans. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their
complaint to include usury claims under California state law and
to seek restitution of late charges and interest paid by members
of the putative class and other relief.

In the fourth quarter of 2016, the parties reached a settlement
in principle that would resolve the Ubaldi matter, as well as the
related lawsuit of Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation, et al.
A reserve was established for this matter as of December 31,
2016. Plaintiffs filed on September 25, 2017, an Amended Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. On October 13, 2017, the
Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval. The Final
Approval Hearing was set for May 29, 2018.

Navient said, "We do not believe that the financial impact of the
final settlement, if any, will be material. The Company agreed to
settle these matters to avoid the burden, expense, risk, and
uncertainty of continued litigation."

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Lord Abbett Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in the case, Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative
securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain
investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District
Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The
caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund,
Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed
their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. In
September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court on
November 17, 2017. The Navient defendants deny the allegations
and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this
lawsuit and filed a motion to dismiss in January 2018.

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Seeks Dismissal of "Pope" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pope v. Navient Corporation et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-08373 (D. N.J., October 16, 2017), Defendants Somsak
Chivavibul, Christian M. Lown, Navient and John F. Remondi filed
on June 4, 2018, a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint.  The Defendants also filed a Memorandum of Law
in Support of the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Robert B Kugler oversees the case.

Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that two putative class actions have been filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi,
Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M.
Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities
laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Navient said, "These cases have been consolidated and we
anticipate a consolidated amended complaint will be filed in
early 2018. The Company denies the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself."

Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business
processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NPAS SOLUTIONS: Seeks Approval of TCPA Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Hurtibise, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that the growing
robocall menace is proving difficult to contain, but thousands of
victims are finding a way to get even -- by getting paid.

Federal class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of recipients of
unwanted calls and texts are multiplying, compelling companies
that violate the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
to agree to cash settlements.

Boca Raton-based attorney Michael Greenwald, representing a class
of recipients of unwanted calls from medical debt collector NPAS
Solutions LLC, appeared in federal court in West Palm Beach on
May 7 to secure final approval for a $1.4 million settlement that
will pay nearly 10,000 people $80 each.  U.S. District Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg approved the settlement after the hearing,
according to a signed order.

Mr. Greenwald's firm, Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, focuses on
class-action suits against telemarketers that violate the
consumer protection act.

"When the caller is a legitimate business, like a bank or debt
collector, existing federal law allows us to go after them,"
Mr. Greenwald said.  "In some instances, we've been able to get
millions of dollars in compensation for those called."

Most recorded debt collection calls are legal as long as the
recipient is the caller's customer.  Just about every service
agreement signed by customers of banks, credit cards, hospitals,
gyms and so on includes a statement giving those companies the
right to make automated phone calls.

It's when the companies call people who aren't customers that
they open themselves to litigation, Mr. Greenwald said.

Lawsuits filed under the consumer protection act increased by 46
percent -- from 2,127 to 3,121 -- between August 2015 and
December 2016, according to an Aug. 31 report by the U.S. Chamber
Institute for Legal Reform, which believes the litigation has
become abusive.

The increase was triggered by a 2015 declaratory order by the
Federal Communications Commission, the chamber report says, which
"loosened the standards for filing such suits."

According to Greenwald, consumer protection act-based lawsuits
started increasing along with the number of robocalls about a
decade ago, after cellphones became our primary means of
communication, and outbound calling became "infinitely cheaper"
than it was when the act was enacted in 1991.  While the law
allows plaintiffs to pursue financial damages from "legitimate
businesses" that violate the act, the most egregious players --
the scammers who set up robocall operations overseas -- remain
out of reach.

"Unfortunately, when the callers are scams or other illegitimate
entities, we don't have a very good solution, and more attention
needs to be given to that issue," he said.

Why are we getting more and more robocalls every month?
The case against NPAS Solutions was filed in March 2017 on behalf
of anyone who had received cellphone calls from the debt
collector's "automatic telephone dialing system" between March
28, 2013 and Dec. 4, 2017.

According to the complaint, the consumer protection act restricts
use of automated telephone equipment and nonemergency prerecorded
voice calls without "prior express consent" of the called party.

NPAS Solutions, which operates a call center in Kentucky,
violated the act by routinely dialing "wrong or reassigned
telephone numbers that do not belong to the intended recipients
of the calls," the complaint stated.  The company denied any
wrongdoing prior to agreeing to settle, court records show.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Charles T. Johnson of Lantana,
received numerous automated prerecorded calls to his cellphone
from the company, which was trying to reach a third party named
"Stephanie," the suit stated.

When he answered the calls, Johnson was greeted by a voice
recording instructing "Stephanie" to hold for the next available
operator.  The calls continued even after Johnson told a company
representative it was calling the wrong person and demanded that
the calls stop, the suit stated.

Why does People's Trust Insurance keep suing its own
policyholders?
Anyone who received more than one call from NPAS Solutions that
was intended for someone not assigned to the phone number was
eligible to become a member of the class of plaintiffs.

To find those plaintiffs, Mr. Greenwald's firm sent a settlement
notice to everyone in NPAS Solution's automated call database
that had a "wrong number" notation, and those recipients only
needed to check a box confirming they received wrong number
calls, Mr. Greenwald said.

Anyone who didn't get a claim form but thought they were class
members could provide their phone number to see if it matched one
of the "wrong numbers" in NPAS' call records.

Other settlements reached by Greenwald's firm for similar wrong-
number robocalls include a $19.7 million agreement with debt
collection firm Navient Solutions LLC in July 2017; a $30.4
million settlement with Wells Fargo Bank in May 2017; and a $3.8
million settlement with JPMorgan Chase Bank in June 2017.

Cruise lines Carnival, Norwegian and Royal Caribbean agreed in
August to create a settlement fund worth $7 million to $12.5
million to settle a consumer protection act case that claims the
companies contracted with a telemarketing company that placed
unwanted calls between 2009 and 2014 claiming recipients had won
free cruises, court records show.

Suits under the consumer protection act currently in litigation
involve Ally Financial, Nationstar, Capital One, ADT Security,
Gold's Gym, Bank of America and Dish Network, according to a
class-action lawsuit news site, topclassactions.com.

The website -- which accepts ads from law firms and carries a
disclaimer stating it's a member of the American Bar Association
-- also includes links by which potential class members can
connect to attorneys involved in the cases it reports about and
possibly get paid if settlements are reached.

Those opportunities might recede if the U.S. Chamber Institute
for Legal Reform succeeds in persuading Congress to act.

"American businesses have been besieged by litigation under the
TCPA," the institute said on its website.  "A central theme with
the unchecked expansion of the TCPA's prohibitions is that it is
not the unscrupulous scam telemarketers that are being targeted
by TCPA litigation, but rather legitimate domestic businesses."

The institute supports updating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which was enacted in 1991, and is calling for passage of a
congressional bill to "address broader problems with class-action
lawsuits."

Mr. Greenwald said the class-action suits have compelled "some
companies to take compliance with the law more seriously, but it
has not cured the problem." [GN]


NRG YIELD: Oct. 30 Hearing Set in "Braun" Suit
----------------------------------------------
NRG Yield, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a hearing on Defendants' demurrers and
motion challenging jurisdiction in the case, Braun v. NRG Yield,
Inc., is set for October 30, 2016.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members
of its board of directors individually, and other parties in
California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind
production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, attorney's fees
and costs. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion
challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. The case is
currently stayed by agreement of the parties.  On May 2, 2018,
the court approved a joint stipulation which provides: (i)
plaintiffs' opposition brief is due on or before July 30, 2018;
(ii) defendants' reply brief is due on or before October 5, 2018;
and (iii) a hearing on the motions is scheduled for October 30,
2018.

NRG Yield, Inc. is a dividend growth-oriented company that has
historically served as the primary vehicle through which NRG
owns, operates and acquires contracted renewable and conventional
generation and thermal infrastructure assets. The company is
based in Princeton, New Jersey.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Florida Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP in an article for JDSupra, wrote that on
April 30, 2018, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a
consolidated putative securities class action against financial
services company Ocwen Financial Corporation (the "Company") and
two of its officers.  Carvelli et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corp. et
al., No. 9:17-cv-80500 (S.D. Fla. April 30, 2018).  Plaintiffs --
shareholders of the Company -- alleged that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making
materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding operational and technological deficiencies within the
Company's mortgage servicing software platform, causing losses to
plaintiffs when the deficiencies were revealed and the Company's
stock declined.  The Court disagreed, finding that the statements
in question were non-actionable puffery or opinion, forward-
looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary
statements, or statements on their face not false, and therefore
dismissed the action with prejudice.

The Court first considered plaintiffs' allegation that defendants
misrepresented the Company's compliance with various consent
orders entered into with regulators regarding its mortgage
servicing business.  After entering into the consent orders, the
Company allegedly made various statements concerning its
expectations for its compliance management systems in which the
Company described itself as a leader compared to its peers.
Plaintiffs alleged that such statements were materially false and
were intended to convince the market that the Company was
"turning over a new leaf and that its history of mortgage
servicing misconduct was a thing of the past."  The Court
disagreed, finding that the Company's statements were mere
puffery, noting that the Company never stated it was in
compliance with regulations, but rather merely made vague
statements about its efforts towards compliance.  Emphasizing
that such generalized "puffery" statements are not actionable
because a reasonable investor would not base his or her
investment decision on such statements, the Court concluded that
the statements were not materially false or misleading.

The Court similarly rejected plaintiffs' allegations that certain
of the Company's statements, including that it "expected to
continue to be profitable and generate strong operating cash
flow," were false, finding that such statements were merely
optimistic forward-looking statements that were accompanied by
sufficient cautionary language detailing factors that could
affect the Company's results.  The Court also agreed with the
Company that certain statements alleged by plaintiffs to be
false, such as the Company's belief concerning its competitive
strengths, were non-actionable statements of opinion, which would
be actionable only if the opinion was not sincerely held or
included untrue facts.  Finding that the complaint did not
sufficiently allege any misstatement with the particularity
required by Rule 9(b), the Court held that the complaint did not
sufficiently allege that the Company knew that the statements in
question were false, or that the Company lacked a sufficient
basis for forming the stated opinion.  The Court also noted that
certain remaining statements that plaintiffs alleged to be
misrepresentations -- such as statistics concerning the Company's
industry leadership based on the number of completed loan
modifications -- were on their face not false.

Finding no primary violation under Section 10(b), the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' Section 20(a) control liability claims
against the two individual defendants.  The Court also held that
because any amendment would not cure the infirmities inherent in
the complaint and that plaintiffs have had adequate opportunity
to amend its pleadings, the Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice. [GN]


OVASCIENCE INC: Court Dismisses Retirement System's Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the Suffolk County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has entered a final judgment
dismissing plaintiff Westmoreland County Employee Retirement
System's claims without prejudice.

On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against the Company, several of its officers and
directors and certain of the underwriters from the Company's
January 2015 follow-on public offering of its common stock. The
plaintiffs purported to represent those persons who purchased
shares of the company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its
January 2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs alleged,
among other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information in the
Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and incorporated
offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek,
among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission,
pre-and post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements.

On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to the Superior Court. Oral argument on the
motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016. On February 23,
2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
action to the Superior Court. On February 26, 2016, a second
putative class action suit was filed in the Suffolk County
Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the
Company, several of its officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from the January 2015 follow-on public offering of
the Company's common stock.

The complaint is substantially similar to the complaint filed in
October 2015. The two actions subsequently were consolidated and
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June
17, 2016. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
Those motions were denied by order dated December 22, 2016.

On August 17, 2016, an additional plaintiff, Westmoreland County
Employee Retirement System ("Westmoreland") moved to intervene in
the consolidated action. The defendants opposed Westmoreland's
motion to intervene. The Superior Court granted Westmoreland's
motion to intervene on October 27, 2017. On August 7, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, which the
defendants opposed. Oral argument on the motion for class
certification was held on September 29, 2017. On November 7,
2017, the Superior Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

On August 14, 2017, the defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment against plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos,
Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas, which the plaintiffs opposed.
Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was held on
October 18, 2017. On November 21, 2017, the Superior Court
allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the
claims asserted by plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos,
Philipp Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas in the consolidated actions
were dismissed, leaving Westmoreland as the sole remaining
plaintiff.

On November 22, 2017, Westmoreland filed a putative class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the same defendants alleging the same
claims as are alleged in the state court case (the "Westmoreland
Federal Action").

On January 17, 2018, the lead plaintiff in a different case, a
purported shareholder class action alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Dahhan Action") filed a motion to intervene in the
Westmoreland Federal Action and to consolidate the Westmoreland
Federal Action with the Dahhan Action.

OvaScience said, "We have opposed this motion, which is pending."

In the Westmoreland Federal Action, on January 22, 2018,
Westmoreland moved for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval
of lead and liaison counsel. The lead plaintiff in the Dahhan
Action opposed the motion. With the court's leave, on April 26,
2018, the defendants opposed Westmoreland's motion on statute of
limitations grounds. This motion is pending.

On January 22, 2018, Westmoreland filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the Superior Court action without prejudice. The
defendants opposed that motion. Oral argument on Westmoreland's
motion for voluntary dismissal was held on April 3, 2018. On
April 5, 2018, the Superior Court allowed Westmoreland's motion
for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The Superior Court
entered final judgment on April 10, 2018, dismissing
Westmoreland's claims without prejudice and dismissing the claims
of plaintiffs Heather Carlson, Cesar Castellanos, Philipp
Hofmann, and Carlos Rivas with prejudice. We believe that the
complaints in both cases are without merit and intend to defend
against the remaining pending litigation.

OvaScience said, "There can be no assurance, however, that we
will be successful. A resolution of these lawsuits adverse to the
Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on
our consolidated financial position and results of operations in
the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are
unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the
lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc. is a company focused on the discovery and
development of new treatment options for women and couples
struggling with infertility. OvaScience is leveraging the
breakthrough discovery of egg precursor, or EggPCSM, cells to
transform the treatment landscape for women's fertility. The
company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.


OVASCIENCE INC: Bid to Consolidate Class Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the motion to consolidate the Freedman
Family Investments LLC suit with the Westmoreland Federal Action,
is pending.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its present and
former officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On July 5, 2017, the
Court entered an order approving the appointment of Freedman
Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel, and the Law Office of
Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017.  The
company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which is pending. On January 17, 2018, the lead plaintiff moved
to consolidate the Westmoreland Federal Action with this case.
The company has opposed this motion, which is pending.

OvaScience said, "We believe that the complaint is without merit
and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no
assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of
this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could
have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and
results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is
resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses,
if any, related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc. is a company focused on the discovery and
development of new treatment options for women and couples
struggling with infertility. OvaScience is leveraging the
breakthrough discovery of egg precursor, or EggPCSM, cells to
transform the treatment landscape for women's fertility. The
company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts.


PBF ENERGY: "Goldstein" Class Action Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit entitled, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon
Mobil Corporation, et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named
as defendants in a class action and representative action
complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela
Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private
nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public
nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from
the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP")
explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was then owned and
operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the
PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs'
claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained
responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the
lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of
the Torrance Refinery.

PBF Energy said, "This matter is in the initial stages of
discovery and we cannot currently estimate the amount or the
timing of its resolution. We presently believe the outcome will
not have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc. is one of the largest independent petroleum
refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating
oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum
products in the United States. The company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.


PFIZER CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Birth Control Pills
----------------------------------------------------------
Anita Bathe, writing for CBC News, reports that Taylor MacKinnon
says she never imagined she'd be pregnant at 23 years old.

She says she has always wanted children but assumed that would
come when she and her partner were ready and settled in their
careers.

Instead, she says she's found herself with an unplanned
pregnancy-- and the Victoria woman is blaming one of the
country's largest pharmaceutical companies.  Pfizer Canada
manufactures Alesse, which was Ms. MacKinnon's birth control of
choice for four years.

"Becoming pregnant while taking Alesse has impacted my life and
my partner's life, as I am now less than a year out of school
with a large student loan, and he is only just completing
university this spring," said Ms. MacKinnon.

On Dec.1, 2017, Health Canada issued a public advisory for Alesse
21 and Alesse 28 birth control pills.  It said certain affected
packages may contain broken or smaller than normal pills, which
could reduce their effectiveness.

The notice of civil claim says Ms. MacKinnon refilled her
prescription in October and got a call from her pharmacy after
the advisory was issued.  About a week-and-a-half later, she
discovered she was pregnant and that it happened near the end of
November.

"It is just kind of scary.  I might have not taken those pills
had I known sooner," said Ms. MacKinnon.

Lawsuit claims negligence
The proposed lawsuit, filed by Rice Harbut Elliott LLP, claims
Pfizer Canada was negligent and fell short of ensuring Alesse 21
and Alesse 28 were manufactured to product standards.  It also
accuses the company of failing to implement a timely advisory
once the risks of the pills' reduced effectiveness were known to
them.

"Birth control affords women reproductive independence and
security over their own body.  Women relied on Pfizer to deliver
birth control to them, that they paid for, that wasn't
effective," said John Rice -- jrice@rhelaw.com -- one of the
lawyers representing
Ms. MacKinnon.

None of the allegations has been proven in court and the proposed
lawsuit still needs to be certified as a class action by a judge.
Ms. MacKinnon is seeking damages, including loss of both past and
prospective income, cost of future care and medical and out-of-
pocket expenses.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, Rice Harbut
Elliott LLP believes there will be others in Canada who would
join it.

In the meantime, Ms. MacKinnon and her partner have chosen to
keep their child.  They say despite the challenges the decision
may pose financially, the pair is looking forward to welcoming
their new baby girl in August. [GN]


PHH CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against PHH Corporation ("PHH" or the
"Company") (NYSE:PHH) for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired PHH securities on the open market
and still hold their shares.

On February 27, 2018, PHH's Board of Directors (the "Board")
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Ocwen Financial Corporation
("Parent") and POMS Corp ("Merger Sub," and together with Parent,
"Ocwen"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
stockholders of PHH will receive $11.00 in cash for each share of
PHH they own.  On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.  The Complaint alleges PHH and its Board
violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's stockholders by (1) failing to conduct a fair
sale process, (2) failing to disclose all material financial
information as to the alleged benefits of the sale in advance of
the shareholder meeting presently scheduled for June 11, 2018,
and (3) not providing enough information for the shareholders to
decide whether this proposed transaction undervalues the Company
and if so, by how much.

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


PHOENIX SUTTON: Construction Workers to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kleber Romero, Kleber Enrique Valdez, Elsin Armando Amoy and
Henry Oswaldo Amoy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Phoenix Sutton Str. Inc,
Michal Siwiec and Peter Siwiec, as individuals, Defendant, Case
No. CV18-2150 (E.D. N.Y., April 11, 2018), seeks overtime wages,
compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and all other legal and equitable remedies under the Fair
Labor Standards and Act and New York Labor Law.

Phoenix Sutton Str. Inc. is a general contractor into bathroom
addition, multi-family remodeling, custom homes, kitchen addition
and home construction. Plaintiffs are construction personnel who
worked for Phoenix Sutton and claimed to be denied overtime pay
for hours rendered over 40 per work week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Fax: (718) 263-9598
      Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: "Luna" Sues Over Engine Fire Hazzard
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Polaris Industries, Inc. and Polaris
Sales Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00939 (D. Minn., April 10,
2018), seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages and
restitution, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded, attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other
and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraudulent
omission, breach of express and implied warranty of
merchantability and violation of California Unfair Competition
Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Polaris sells off-road vehicles with the 2013-2018 Polaris RZR
900 and 1000 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles.  Their engines'
exhaust gas piping lack proper ventilation and heat shielding and
is positioned within inches of combustible plastic body panels,
thus, posing a fire hazard, says the complaint.

Luna purchased a new Polaris RZR 1000 vehicle on or about
February 9, 2018. His vehicle set on fire during operation and
burned within one hour of its initial operation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Gregory N. McEwen, Esq.
       MCEWEN LAW FIRM, LTD.
       5850 Blackshire Path
       Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
       Telephone: (651) 224-3833
       Email: gmcewen@mcewenlaw.com

              - and -

       Roland Tellis, Esq.
       Mark Pifko, Esq.
       David Fernandes, Esq.
       BARON & BUDD, P.C.
       15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
       Encino, CA 91436
       Telephone: (818) 839-2333
       Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
              mpifko@baronbudd.com
              dfernandes@baronbudd.com

              - and -

       Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
       Clifford L. Carter, Esq.
       CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP
       1111 Exposition Boulevard, Suite 602
       Sacramento, CA 95815
       Telephone: (916) 567-1111
       Email: kirk@cwclawfirm.com
              cliff@cwclawfirm.com

              - and -

       Roger A. Dreyer, Esq.
       Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
       DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA
       20 Bicentennial Circle
       Sacramento, CA 95826
       Telephone: (916) 379-3500
       Email: rdreyer@dbbwclaw.com
              cwood@dbbwclaw.com


POKERSTARS: May Face Class Action Lawsuit, Lawyer Says
------------------------------------------------------
Card Player reports that a high-stakes lawsuit pitting 2016 WSOP
main event runner-up Gordon Vayo against the world's leading
online poker site could eventually involve more plaintiffs,
according to the lawyer representing Vayo.

Vayo filed a civil complaint against PokerStars in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging fraud for
withholding payment of a nearly $700,000 tournament score from
May 2017. PokerStars, which controls around 70 percent of the
global online poker market, believed, according to the suit, that
Vayo had played the tournament from within the United States,
which has been forbidden since U.S. authorities cracked down on
internet poker in April 2011. Vayo's 29-page lawsuit alleges that
PokerStars confiscates winnings "with impunity" after conducting
"sham investigation[s]" into a player's whereabouts only after
they win a lot of money. He alleges that this has happened to
other online poker players.

Vayo claims he was in Canada when he won the tournament, where he
is a registered player on the site, and argues that PokerStars is
unable to prove that he wasn't.

PokerStars declined comment on "pending litigation" to
OnlinePokerReport, but did say the "investigation into this
particular matter is ongoing." Vayo's suit claims that PokerStars
told him on April 7, 2018 that the investigation into his
location during the tournament was finished and that he would not
be able to cash out the money. He filed suit less than a month
later.

PokerStars defended itself by saying it has "a duty to protect
the integrity of the game."

To bolster his allegations, Vayo claims that an unnamed "Player
A" had a similar issue with a roughly $140,000 tournament score,
but PokerStars "finally relented" and cashed him or her out.

Greg Fayer, Esq. -- gfayer@fayergipson.com -- Vayo's attorney,
told Card Player that the case is just getting started, and that
there could be a class action lawsuit, depending on the results
of the discovery phase.

"We will certainly monitor the situation to determine whether a
class action might be appropriate," Fayer said. "At this point we
do not want to add anything beyond what we have stated in our
complaint. However, we are monitoring the situation and look
forward to the discovery phase of the case when the extent of
PokerStars conduct will be brought to light." [GN]


PROVIDENCE, RI: Settlement Reached in Speed Camera Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Maradiaga, writing for NBC 10 NEWS, reports that a
settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit against the
city of Providence's speed camera program.

Attorney Peter Petrarca, Esq. -- info@petrarcalaw.com -- on the
evening of May 10 confirmed to NBC 10 News that the settlement
had been reached "a little while ago."

The details of the settlement were not released and a larger
statement is expected to be made.

Petrarca says the terms and language is being finalized by the
parties.

The suit was originally filed in Providence Superior Court by
seven plaintiffs, including an auto leasing company, and
complained of that the city "purposefully and knowingly issued
and continued to issue defective and invalid summonses" for the
purse of collecting fines.

The City of Providence also confirmed a settlement had been
reached, but did not offer any details.[GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action in Chicago Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago class-action lawyer has filed a 97-page lawsuit in
Chicago federal court against 13 drug companies and distributors,
on behalf of a woman who alleges the companies promoted opioid
use, knowing such painkillers were dangerously addictive, jacking
up people's health insurance costs.

Attorney Jay Edelson and his firm, Edelson P.C., lodged the suit
May 2 for Illinois resident Barbara Rivers against a collection
of drugmakers, including Purdue Pharma; Insys Therapeutics; Teva
Pharmaceutical; Cephalon; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen
Pharmaceuticals; Endo Pharmaceuticals; Actavis, Inc.; Watson
Pharmaceuticals; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; and
Amerisourcebergen Corporation.

The suit alleges defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act and the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act.  Specifically, the suit asserts the companies caused
prescription painkillers to flood the country, hooking patients
and leading addicts to pursue other opioids, such as heroin and
fentanyl.

A number of governmental bodies, including Cook County and other
counties around Chicago, have entered suits against opioid
manufacturers on behalf of taxpayers, who they say have had to
foot the bill for the burden placed on public agencies by the
opioid crisis.

Mr. Edelson is not representing those counties.  However,
Mr. Edelson says the opioid epidemic has taken at least 351,000
lives since 1999 and cost the public untold billions of dollars.

Mr. Edelson's new lawsuit applies to those who pay for health
insurance.  Mr. Edelson's plaintiff, Rivers, paid for Blue Cross
Blue Shield insurance for herself and her husband, with her costs
jacked up, because of insurance claims by others in connection
with painkiller abuse and higher painkiller prescription prices,
according to the suit.

The suit assigns blame fully to the pharmaceutical companies.

"Manufacturers have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing
scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat
chronic pain.  In doing so, manufacturers falsely minimized the
risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far
more opioid prescriptions than there should have been.  The
opioid epidemic is the direct result of the manufacturers'
deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception," the
lawsuit said.

"For years," the companies have "misled susceptible prescribers
and vulnerable patient populations.  They transformed the way
doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid
prescriptions and dependence.  As families and communities
suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the manufacturers
earned billions in profits as a direct result of the harms they
imposed," the suit alleged.

Regarding the drug distributors, they "fulfilled suspicious
orders from pharmacies and ignored red flags," allowing "massive
amounts of opioids to be diverted from legitimate channels of
distribution into the illicit black market," the suit alleged.

Mr. Edelson alleged some defendants stooped to bribing doctors to
prescribe painkillers and exaggerated the risks of non-opioid
drugs and "treatment strategies." These defendants "tainted
virtually every source doctors could rely on for information and
prevented them from making informed treatment decisions,"
Mr. Edelson alleged.

In connection with health insurance, the suit claimed defendants
have "created higher demand and thus higher prices for opioids,
as well as the need for expensive medical treatment for a number
of covered health conditions, resulting in increased insurance
costs for Illinois consumers."

Insurance companies, who were also fooled by defendants about
opioids, have absorbed increased costs in connection with opioid
abuse, which they passed on to those insured, Mr. Edelson
alleged.

Mr. Edelson said at a December gathering of the City Club of
Chicago that treatment costs have mostly, but wrongly been borne
by taxpayers.

U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo is presiding over the suit.

The Edelson firm in recent years has handled a number of class
actions, including numerous suits claiming companies violated
digital privacy rights, and litigation accusing the National
Collegiate Athletic Association of contributing to athletes'
brain damage. [GN]


REALOGY GROUP: Aug. 16 Final Approval Hearing on "Dodge" Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that a final approval hearing of the settlement
of the case, Dodge, et al. v. PHH Corporation, et al., formerly
captioned Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al.
(U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), is
set for August 16, 2018.

This is a purported class action brought by four California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a
joint venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of
Section 8(a) of RESPA.

On May 19, 2017, the parties held a mediation session, at which
they agreed in principle to a settlement of the action, pursuant
to which the Company would pay approximately $8 million (or one-
half of the settlement). In settling the matter, the Company
specifically denied any wrongdoing with respect to the claims
asserted in the case. As a result of the settlement, the Company
accrued $8 million in the second quarter of 2017 and the
liability is included in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. On
January 29, 2018, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, directed class notices to be sent by
February 2018 and set the hearing on final approval of the
settlement for August 16, 2018. Class notices were sent in
February 2018.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in
the United States and internationally. The company is based in
Madison, New Jersey.


RED HAT INC: "Fleming" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Colin Fleming, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Red Hat, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00913 (N.D. Tex., April
11, 2018), seeks all unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees,
costs and expenses of this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Red Hat provides open sources software products and services to
the enterprise community. Fleming worked as an Inside Sales
Representative for Red Hat over the last two years and worked
over 40 hours in one or more workweeks during that time period,
all without overtime pay, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 790-4454
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
      Website: www.4overtimelawyer.com


RIPPLE LABS: Johson Fistel Law Firm Investigates Potential Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel McIntosh writing for Finance Magnates, reports that
following the launch of a class action lawsuit against Ripple on
May 4, shareholder rights law firm Johson Fistel, LLP is
reportedly "investigating potential claims against Ripple Labs."

"Defendants have since earned massive profits by quietly selling
off this XRP to the general public . . . in order to increase
demand for XRP, and thereby increase the profits it can derive by
selling XRP," reads the suit.

"Ripple Labs has consistently portrayed XRP as a good investment,
relayed optimistic price predictions, and conflated Ripple Labs'
enterprise customers with usage of XRP." Interested investors are
encouraged to contact Johnson Fistel.

"A Never-Ending ICO"
The original class action lawsuit was brought against Ripple
(XRP) by a burned investor, Ryan Coffey.  Together with
blockchain-specialized law firm Taylor-Copeland Law, Coffey has
accused the San Francisco-based Ripple Labs of violating both
state and federal securities laws.

The suit alleged that Ripple has been carrying out what a "never-
ending ICO", selling tokens that can be legally classified as
unregistered securities under the California Corporations Code
and the US Securities Act. The case has been brought on behalf of
all entities who purchased XRP after January 1, 2013.

Coffey reportedly bought 650 XRP tokens for roughly $2.60 each
(worth ~$1690) on January 6, 2018.  Twelve days later, on January
18, he traded all of his XRP for the equivalent of $1,105 in
Tether dollars, marking a net loss of approximately $550.

In Spite of the Hype, Ripple Still Claims That It Is "Not a
Security"

There may be some merit to the case--CCN reported that formed
CFTC Commission Chairman Gary Gensler said that he would classify
XRP tokens as 'non-compliant securities' due to Ripple's
centralized distributed model.

However, murky interpretations of the ways that financial
regulations should apply to cryptocurrencies have led to some
serious legal confusion within the crypto space.

Despite the buzz around the lawsuit, Ripple executives remain
unconcerned.  They have always publicly held the opinion that XRP
is "absolutely not a security," in the words of Cory Johnson,
Ripple's chief market strategist. [GN]


RKJ INC: Kamin Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Kamin, individually and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. R.K.J., INC., Domestic
Profit Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-11137, (E.D. Mich., April 10,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant owns and operates four McDonald's franchises in
Michigan where Plaintiff work as an hourly-paid crew member at
Defendant's 26730 Eureka Rd. location until approximately
November 2017. She claims to have worked in excess of forty hours
in various work weeks throughout the duration of her employment
with Defendant without being a paid overtime pay.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Tel: (313) 251-1399
      Fax: (313) 739-1975
      Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com


SAKS INC: Faces "Joseph" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saks Incorporated.
The case is styled as Cassondra Joseph, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Saks
Incorporated, Lord & Taylor LLC and Hudson's Bay Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04563-UA (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Saks, Inc., originally Proffitt's Inc. until 1998, is a Fortune
1000 operator of high-end department stores in the United States
under the nameplate Saks Fifth Avenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ralph E Labaton, Esq.
   Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (917) 609-2714
   Fax: (212) 687-7714
   Email: rlabaton@kaplanfox.com

      - and -

   David A. Straite, Esq.
   Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
   850 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 687-1980
   Fax: (212) 687-7714
   Email: dstraite@kaplanfox.com


SELECT COMFORT: Greenbaum Rowe Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica A. Flynn, Esq. -- jflynn@greenbaumlaw.com -- and
Stephanie G. Reckord, Esq. -- sreckord@greenbaumlaw.com -- of
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, in an article for Lexology,
wrote that the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act (TCCWNA) has been fertile ground for consumer class actions.
The New Jersey Supreme Court's April 16, 2018 ruling in Spade v.
Select Comfort, however, may all but put an end to such claims.

TCCWNA, enacted in 1981, prohibits contracts or notices that
violate consumer rights.  The statute further provides that an
"aggrieved consumer" can recover a civil penalty of not less than
$100 for a violation, together with reasonable attorney's fees
and court costs.  In recent years, TCCWNA has been the basis for
a wave of class action litigation.  Plaintiffs have successfully
maintained class actions for the statutory $100 penalty, where
there was no actual harm, but solely on the grounds that the
named plaintiff and class members had received a contract or
notice that contained a provision that allegedly violated a
clearly established legal right.  The $100 statutory penalty gave
all of the class members identical claims, which is tailor made
for class action.  In a large class action, the damages under
TCCWNA can be significant given the availability of attorneys'
fees and costs in addition to the statutory $100 penalty for each
class member.

The Spade case is a good example.  In Spade, furniture buyers
brought two class actions for violations under TCCWNA, alleging
violations of statutory regulations regarding furniture delivery
in New Jersey.  The U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey dismissed both cases.  Since there was no actual harm, the
District Court ruled that the plaintiffs were not "aggrieved
consumers" and could not sue.  The plaintiffs appealed to the
Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit, finding that the issues raised on appeal
involved novel questions under New Jersey law, certified two
questions to the New Jersey Supreme Court:

1. Does a violation of the furniture delivery regulations alone
constitute a violation of a clearly established right or
responsibility of the seller under TCCWNA and thus provides a
basis for relief under the TCCWNA?

2. Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply
with the furniture delivery regulations, but has not suffered any
adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an "aggrieved
consumer" under TCCWNA?

While answering "yes" to the first question, the Supreme Court
unanimously held that in order to prevail on a TCCWNA claim, a
plaintiff must also demonstrate actual harm.  The harm need not
be monetary to be compensable, but it must be real and there must
be proof.

This opinion is certain to put a halt to the flood of class
actions under TCCWNA. Class members will no longer have identical
statutory penalty claims for $100.  A showing of "actual harm"
will require individualized proofs for each plaintiff.  If
plaintiffs are required to show how they have been actually
harmed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to bring such
claims as class actions.

This decision will not affect an individual's ability to assert a
claim or a counterclaim in a suit brought by the seller, provided
that the individual has suffered some adverse consequence.  While
this decision will significantly curtail the use of TCCWNA as a
vehicle for class action claims, it is still a viable and useful
claim or defense for consumers who can show actual harm. [GN]


SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Lawyer Seeks Approval of EMF Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Arial, writing for The Suburban, reports that lawyer
Charles O'Brien was in court to ask the Quebec court to approve a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of roughly 3% of Quebeckers who
suffer from the cumulative effects of electromagnetic fields
(EMF).

"This is a case about access to justice," said Mr. O'Brien.  "It
would be unrealistic and unaffordable for all of these people to
create individual lawsuits against all the parties involved."

Case #500-06-000760-153 began on May 8 in room 17.09 at the
Montreal Courthouse.

In this case, Mahons and Durand allege that the Attorney Generals
of Canada and Quebec, Hydro Quebec, several municipalities, the
entire telecommunications industry and many players in the
transportation and tourism industries knowingly harmed Canadians
through their actions.

The named representatives are Marcel Durand, Evelyn Hahon and
Myles Mahon, each of whom has spent many years understanding how
EMF has harmed their health.  Durand suffers from leukemia and
now sleeps in a Faraday cage.  The Mahons spent more than $50,000
to move a Hydro transformer station further way from their home.

Since their research began, Mr. O'Brien has met hundreds of other
people who suffer similar issues.  He also knows that Quebec
fauna are not immune either and has already won a case against
Hydro Quebec for damaging the business of a pig farmer in the
Eastern Townships.  He's also the lawyer who represented
businesses accused of using too much English on signs.

Mr. O'Brien faces some of the best lawyers in Quebec.  Defendents
include: the Societe de Transport de Montreal, BCE Inc.
Communications Mega-Stat Inc. (Rogers), Videotron G.P., Telus,
Virgin Mobile Canada, Koodo, Fido Solutions Inc., Silicon
Laboratories Canada Inc., Mattel Canada Inc., G.E. Canada, Sony
of Canada ltd., Tesla Motors Canada U.L.C., General Motors of
Canada Company, General Electric Canada, FCA Canada Inc.,
Volkswagen Canada, IBM Canada Limited, Apple Canada Inc.,
Toshiba, Xerox Canada Inc., Panasonic Canada, Esit Canada
Enterprise Services Co., Cisco Systems Canada Co., Siemens Canada
Ltd., Texas Instruments Canada, Hitachi Data Systems Inc., Lenovo
(Canada) Inc., Ericsson Canada Inc., Philips Electronics Ltd.,
Samsung Electronics Canada, Microsoft Canada, Facebook Canada
Ltd., Arris Canada, LG Electronics Canada Inc., Whirlpool Canada
L.P., Ledvance Ltd., Honeywell Limited, Luxury Hotels
International of Canada ULC, Starbucks, The TDL Group Corp. and
Google Canada Corporation. [GN]


SPIRIT AERO: Delaware High Court to Hear Arguments on June 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2018, that the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware will hear oral arguments on June 13, 2018,
on the indemnification lawsuit filed by The Boeing Co. related to
the UAW arbitration and the "Harkness class action.

On December 5, 2014, Boeing filed a complaint in Delaware
Superior Court, Complex Commercial Litigation Division, entitled
The Boeing Co. v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., No. N14C-12-055 (EMD)
(the "Complaint"). Boeing seeks indemnification from Spirit for
(a) damages assessed against Boeing in International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America
v. Boeing Co., AAA Case No. 54 300 00795 07 ("UAW Arbitration"),
which was brought on behalf of certain former Boeing employees in
Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma, and (b) claims that Boeing settled
in Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v.
Boeing Co., Nos. 05-1251-MLB, 07-1043-MLB (D. Kan.) ("Harkness
Class Action"). The Company, Spirit, and certain Spirit
retirement plan entities were parties to the Harkness Class
Action, but all claims against the Spirit entities were
subsequently dismissed.

Boeing's Complaint asserts that the damages assessed against
Boeing in the UAW Arbitration and the claims settled by Boeing in
the Harkness Class Action are liabilities that Spirit assumed
under an Asset Purchase Agreement between Boeing and Spirit,
dated February 22, 2005 (the "APA"). Boeing asserts claims for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment regarding its
indemnification rights under the APA. Boeing's Complaint alleges
that the UAW Arbitration decision had a net present value of
$39.0 million.

In regard to the Harkness Class Action, the district court
approved a settlement in an amount of $90.0 million. In addition
to the amounts related to the UAW Arbitration and Harkness Class
Action, Boeing seeks indemnification for more than $10.0 million
in attorneys' fees it alleges it expended to defend the UAW
Arbitration and Harkness Class Action, as well as for the
reasonable fees, costs and expenses Boeing expends litigating the
case against Spirit.

Following a motion to dismiss (which was denied by Court Order
dated August 14, 2015), Spirit answered Boeing's Complaint and
asserted a Counterclaim against Boeing, on the ground that the
liabilities at issue were Boeing's responsibility under the APA.
Spirit's Counterclaim alleges breach of contract and seeks a
declaratory judgment regarding Spirit's right to indemnification
from Boeing under the APA. Spirit's Counterclaim seeks to recover
the amounts that Spirit spent litigating the Harkness Class
Action, responding to Boeing's indemnification demands concerning
the Harkness Class Action and UAW Arbitration, and also
litigating the current lawsuit against Boeing.

On December 20, 2016, Boeing and Spirit moved for summary
judgment.  Spirit said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2017, that summary judgment briefing
was completed on February 9, 2017 and oral argument was held on
the parties' motions for summary judgment on March 22, 2017.  On
June 27, 2017, the Delaware Superior Court issued an order
denying Boeing's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting
Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the
liabilities at issue were excluded liabilities under the APA and
holding that Spirit is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and other expenses from Boeing. On July 10, 2017,
Boeing filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment so that Boeing could
pursue an appeal of the Court's June 27, 2017 Order prior to the
determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs
and other expenses to which Spirit is entitled. On July 17, 2017,
Spirit filed its response opposing Boeing's Motion for Entry of
Judgment and oral argument occurred on July 24, 2017. On July 28,
2017, the Court denied Boeing's Motion for Entry of Judgment
finding that there was just reason to delay an appeal to allow
the Court to rule on Spirit's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
Expenses, and Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest ("Motion for
Fees").  The Court set a hearing on the Motion for Fees on
December 1, 2017.

In its recent report, Spirit said the Court granted its motion as
to fees, costs, and expenses incurred as a result of the
litigation and underlying matters and denied the motion as to
pre- and post-trial interest.

On January 3, 2018, Boeing filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Delaware Supreme Court.  Boeing timely filed its opening brief
and supporting appendix, seeking reversal of the Superior Court's
summary judgment ruling in favor of Spirit in its entirety, but
contesting the Superior Court's award of fees, costs, and
expenses only to the extent that it was predicated on the summary
judgment ruling in Spirit's favor.

Spirit filed its answering brief and supporting appendix on March
26, 2018 requesting that the Superior Court's summary judgment
ruling and award of fees, costs, and expenses be affirmed. Boeing
filed a reply brief on April 13, 2018. The Supreme Court will
hear oral arguments on June 13, 2018 and will, thereafter, issue
its decision. Spirit has and will continue to defend vigorously
against the appeal.

Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells non-OEM
aerostructures and aircraft components for commercial and defense
aircrafts in the United States and internationally. The company
is based in Wichita, Kansas.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Discovery Ongoing in Arizona Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 1, 2018, that parties in a class action
lawsuit are engaged in discovery.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock in the
Company's underwritten secondary public offering which closed on
March 10, 2015 (the "March 2015 Offering").

The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged
failure by the Company to disclose adequate information about
produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents. The
complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, the plaintiff sought remand,
which the court granted in March 2017.  On May 25, 2017, the
Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in the Superior Court for the
State of Arizona, which the court granted in part and denied in
part by order entered August 30, 2017. The Company answered the
complaint on September 28, 2017. The parties are engaged in
discovery at this time.

The Company will continue to defend this case vigorously, but it
is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome
of, or any potential liability from, the case.

Sprouts Farmers Market operates as a healthy grocery store that
specializes in fresh, natural and organic products at prices that
appeal to everyday grocery shoppers. The company is based in
Phoenix, Arizona.


SURA USA INC: "Kook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jinwook Kook and Darrick Hubbard, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sura USA, Inc., Hye Ri
Chun and Kiyul Cho, individuals, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-
00395, (W.D. Mi., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid back
wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Chun and Cho jointly own and operate "Sura," a Japanese
restaurant located in Kalamazoo, Michigan where Plaintiffs worked
as cooks. Kook worked approximately 70-80 hours per week as
required by Defendants from December 2017 until his termination
in March 2018 while Hubbard worked approximately 60 hours per
week as required by Defendants from December 2017 until January
2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS & BORSOS, P.C.
      8225 Moorsbridge, PO Box 4010
      Kalamzoo, MI 49003-4010
      Tel: (269) 321-2311
      Email: jyoung@kreisenderle.com


TARGET CORP: Baby Wipes Part of Class-Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Gates, writing for Simplemost, reports that if you've
purchased baby wipes from Target, listen up. You may be entitled
to a Target gift card and/or free product coupons as a result of
a class action lawsuit.

The Up & Up Wipes Class Action Settlement claims that certain Up
& Up flushable toddler wipes manufactured by Nice-Pak and sold at
Target were, in fact, not flushable. Both the manufacturer and
Target deny the claims, but have agreed to settle the case. That
means if you purchased the wipes, you could be eligible to get
some of your money back.

To qualify for your share, the wipes must have been purchased
between April 18, 2010 and Oct. 31, 2014. You do not have to have
proof of purchase, but you can get more from the settlement if
you do.

If you file a claim without proof of purchase, you can either
choose to receive a gift for no more than 20 units ($1.35 per
pack, or $27) or up to 20 coupons for free Up & Up wipes. With a
proof of purchase, you can receive a gift card for $1.35 per
unit, without limiting that number to 20. If you choose coupons
and have a proof of purchase, you'll get 20 coupons for the first
20 purchases, and then a $1.35 gift card for each additional
purchase.

Proof of purchase, in this case, means an itemized retail sales
receipt showing, at a minimum, the purchase of Up & Up flushable
toddler wipes, the purchase price and the date and place of the
purchase.

If you think you qualify, you will need to file a claim. You can
do so online or by mail, but it must be submitted no later than
Sept. 7. If you have questions, just visit the settlement website
or call the settlement administrator at 1-888-878-1989.[GN]


TD AMERITRADE: Krukever Files Suit in Fla., Seeks Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Diego Krukever, Karem Sandgarten and Amir Rahimi, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade Futures & Forex LLC and TD
Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-21399, (S.D.
Fla., April 10, 2018), seeks to recover damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and such other and further relief for
violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.

TD is a financial services company that acts as a broker-dealer
and is engaged in the trading of stocks and bonds for itself and
its more than six million clients. TD is a New York corporation
with more than 350 offices across the country and is one of the
largest discount brokerage firms. Krukever, Rahimi and Sandgarten
held substantial investments in options on E-Mini S&P 500 futures
contracts through TD. It allegedly liquidated their futures
option investments in a thinly populated after-market, likely by
utilizing one or more of its preferred "liquidity providers." By
liquidating in this after-market, TD Ameritrade severely
compounded Plaintiffs' losses, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq.
      Paulino A. N£§ez Jr., Esq.
      RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NU•EZ P.A.
      255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 600
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 350-2300
      Facsimile: (305) 350-2525
      Email: frr@rtgn-law.com
             pan@rtgn-law.com

             - and -

      Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
      Lawrence A. Kellogg, Esq.
      LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
      201 South Biscayne Boulevard
      Miami Center, 22nd Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 403-8788
      Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
      Email: lak@lklsg.com
             jk@lklsg.com


TESARO INC: Crawley Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGER BOWERS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TESARO
INCORPORATED, LEON O. MOULDER JR., Civil Action No. 18-cv-10086-
ADB (D. Mass.), Judge Allison D. Burroughs granted Zev Crawley's
Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of
Selection of Counsel.  The competing motion from ERS-PREPA is
denied.

Zev Crawley is represented by Melissa Troutner, Esq., and Naumon
A. Amjed, Esq., at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; and Michael
T. Anderson, Esq., at Murphy Anderson PLLC.

Competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed
by:

     (1) Daniel A. Doornbos and Anush M. Parikh;
     (2) Employees Retirement System of Puerto Rico Electric
         Power Authority;
     (3) Wayne Matott and Caroline Korn;
     (4) Bratya SPRL;
     (5) Zev Crawley; and
     (6) Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trusts

After several movants conceded that they did not have the largest
financial interest in the action and withdrew their motions, only
Crawley and ERS-PREPA remain in contention.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from Leagle.com at
https://is.gd/JlyyU4

Tesaro said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2018, that a putative class action complaint was filed on January
17, 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Roger Bowers v. TESARO Incorporated
(sic), et al., Case No. 18-10086.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer violated certain federal
securities laws, specifically under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March
14, 2016 and January 12, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, six separate applicants filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff. Four of these applicants
subsequently withdrew their motions or indicated that they did
not oppose a competing motion filed by another applicant.

The Court has also not set a trial date for this matter.

Defendants Tesaro Inc., Leon O. Moulder, Jr., and Timothy R.
Pearson, are represented by Justin P. O'Brien, Esq., Steven F.
Barley, Esq., and Scott R. Haiber, Esq., at Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously. The Company has not recorded an estimated liability
associated with this legal proceeding as it does not believe that
such a liability is probable.

Tesaro, Inc. is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company
devoted to providing transformative therapies to people bravely
facing cancer.  The company's primary focus is to develop
treatments for solid tumors using various approaches, including
small molecules and immuno-oncology antibodies, as monotherapies
and in combinations. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.


THOMAS PINK: Faces "Burbon" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomas Pink, Inc.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thomas Pink, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04589 (S.D. N.Y., May 23, 2018).

Thomas Pink is a British shirt-maker that was founded in London
in 1984 by Irish brothers James, Peter and John Mullen. Since
1999, it has been part of the Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy
group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: "Gordon" Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------
Travelport Worldwide Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2018, that the case Gordon et al. v.
Amadeus IT Group, S.A. et al., has been closed following final
approval of the settlement.

On July 14, 2015 and July 17, 2015, approximately 24 plaintiffs
filed purported class action lawsuits against the company,
Amadeus and Sabre in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Gordon et al. v. Amadeus IT Group,
S.A et al.). A consolidated, amended complaint was filed on
October 2, 2015 (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint
alleged violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws and
state consumer protection laws by defendants beginning in 2006.
In particular, the plaintiffs claimed there was a conspiracy
among the company and the other defendants to impose contract
terms on airlines, which the plaintiffs allege had the effect of
maintaining higher fees and restricting competition.

On November 7, 2017, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, which received final approval by
the court on April 23, 2018. The settlement resolved all pending
claims against the company in connection with the case, and the
court dismissed the Amended Complaint in full, with prejudice, on
April 23, 2018 and closed the case as of that date.

Travelport Worldwide Limited is a travel commerce platform
providing distribution, technology, payment, mobile and other
solutions for the global travel and tourism industry.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Continues to Defend Public Employees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the parties in Public Employees' Retirement
Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., have
filed a joint status report with the Court, describing the nature
of the case and issued involved, as well as setting forth a
proposed discovery and briefing schedule for the Court's
consideration.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
putative class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and
certain of its officers. The complaint, amended on March 24,
2017, is purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
TreeHouse common stock from January 20, 2016 through and
including November 2, 2016, asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and
costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-
CH-16359, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against
TreeHouse and certain of its officers. This complaint,
purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts
state law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain
of its officers. This complaint, like Wells, is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state
law claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste.

All three complaints make substantially similar allegations
(though the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional
detail). Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under
the authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year
2016 guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable
basis. The complaints allege that these actions artificially
inflated the market price of TreeHouse common stock during the
class period, thus purportedly harming investors. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend against them
vigorously.

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been re-
captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.

On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion
to dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April
12, 2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to
the amended complaint.  On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a
joint status report with the Court, describing the nature of the
case and issued involved, as well as setting forth a proposed
discovery and briefing schedule for the Court's consideration.

Additionally, due to the similarity of the complaints, the
parties in Wells and Lavin have entered stipulations deferring
the litigation until the earlier of (i) the court in Public
Employees' entering an order resolving defendants' anticipated
motion to dismiss therein or (ii) plaintiffs' counsel receiving
notification of a settlement of Public Employees' or until
otherwise agreed to by the Parties. The parties filed a joint
status report on the progress of the related litigation on
October 26, 2017.  The parties filed an additional status report
with the Court on March 12, 2018. There is no set status date in
Lavin at this time.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaged foods and
beverages with manufacturing facilities across the United States,
Canada, and Italy that focuses primarily on private label
products for both retail grocery and food away from home
customers.


TRI-COUNTY ELECTRIC: Faces "Smith" Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tri-County Electric
Cooperative Inc. The case is styled as Roy C Smith, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tri-
County Electric Cooperative Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
01395-JMC (D. S.C., May 22, 2018).

Tri-County Electric Cooperative was incorporated in 1938 to
provide electric service to residents in the rural areas of
Jefferson, Marion and Washington Counties in Southern
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Graham Lee Newman, Esq.
   Chappell Smith and Arden
   2801 Devine Street, Suite 300
   PO Box 12330
   Columbia, SC 29205
   Tel: (803) 929-3600
   Fax: (803) 929-3604
   Email: gnewman@csa-law.com

       - and -

   Mark Dale Chappell, Esq.
   Chappell and Smith
   PO Box 12330
   Columbia, SC 29211
   Tel: (803) 929-3600
   Fax: (803) 929-3604
   Email: mchappell@csa-law.com

       - and -

   Mark Dale Chappell, Jr., Esq.
   Chappell Smith and Arden
   2801 Devine Street, Suite 300
   PO Box 12330
   Columbia, SC 29205
   Tel: (803) 929-3600
   Email: mchappelljr@csa-law.com

      - and -

   William Hugh McAngus, Jr., Esq.
   Chappell Smith and Arden
   2801 Devine Street, Suite 300
   PO Box 12330
   Columbia, SC 29205
   Tel: (803) 929-3600
   Email: hmcangus@csa-law.com


TWITTER INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit (captioned Doris
Shenwick, et al. v. Twitter, Inc., et al. and Claire Degenhardt,
et al. v. Twitter, Inc., et al.).

The Company is currently a party to a consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit (captioned Doris Shenwick, et al. v.
Twitter, Inc., et al. and Claire Degenhardt, et al. v. Twitter,
Inc., et al.) that was filed in September 2016 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs allege false and misleading statements in violation of
securities laws, naming the Company and two former officers as
defendants and seek unspecified damages. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part.
The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.

Twitter is an online news and social networking service on which
users post and interact with messages known as "tweets". The
company is based in San Francisco, California.


U.S. OLYMPIC: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Muchnick, writing for Beyond Chron, reports that the latest
explosive sexual abuse story in Olympic sports -- a Colorado
lawsuit against the U.S. Olympic Committee, USA Taekwondo, and
brothers Steven Lopez (a champion taekwondoin) and Jean Lopez (an
Olympic head coach) -- goes far beyond the #MeToo flavor of the
month with which the major media have presented the flood of
allegations of widespread and systematic misconduct by youth
sports coaches.

For the first time, lawyers representing victims are utilizing a
statutory mechanism that should allow them to pierce the veils of
not just the bad actors in the coaching ranks, but also the
institutions that protect their "brands' by playing dumb and
enabling heinous behavior.

For the corrupt, money-mad, patriotism-pandering Olympic
movement, the implications are profound. The USOC and its
menagerie of phony national sport governing body nonprofits are
on the defensive in the wake of the USA Gymnastics scandal of
monster doctor Larry Nassar.  Now, thanks to a wrinkle emerging
from the Safe Sport Act that was crafted by Senator Dianne
Feinstein -- an angle evidently missed by USOC's army of
lobbyists and fixers -- Gilbert et al. v. USOC et al. takes abuse
litigation where it has never before ventured: into allegations
of global human trafficking, and via the vehicle of class action.

Before explaining the legal technicalities, let's review the
basic facts of the allegations by taekwondoins Heidi Gilbert,
Amber Means, Mandy Maloon, and Gabriela Joslin.

The plaintiffs maintain that since the mid-1990s, both the USOC
and USA Taekwondo, in knowledge that sport coaches and officials
were sexually abusing young female athletes, supported these
crimes by subsidizing their travel to competitions throughout the
world. According to the lawsuit, hundreds of similarly situated
athletes have been exposed to the predatory Lopez brothers since
2007.

It's the "similarly situated" part that's the key.  Heretofore,
alleged victims have had to fight their cases in isolation, one
by one, because the fact patterns were too diverse to satisfy
"commonality" requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which governs class action.

As someone who has been investigating sexual abuse, primarily in
USA Swimming, for more than six years, I know that it has been
impossible to legally lump together the allegations of different
athletes.  For example, Bill Jewell, the dirty old man assistant
to former Olympic head coach Mark Schubert, disparaged girl
swimmers about the size of their boobs.  That is not the same as,
say, International Swimming Hall of Fame coach Paul Bergen, whom
Deena Deardurff unrefutedly says molested her in the basement
boiler room of a Cincinnati aquatics center several years before
she won a gold medal at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.

Specifically, the Colorado lawsuit claims the USOC and USA
Taekwondo "exposed hundreds of young female athletes to two adult
predators" by allowing Steven Lopez to compete and Jean Lopez to
be the U.S. coach at the Olympics, world championships and other
competitions.  Further, the organizations' role in funding and
facilitating these arrangements opens the door not only to class
action, but also to the trafficking aspect common to them.

How this all came about is a delicious reverse-loophole of the
SafeSport Act.  You can count me among the skeptics concerning
whether the U.S. Center for SafeSport, which the statute created,
will be a difference-maker on the abuse issue.  While I believe
the center deserves a chance to show its stuff, I don't regard it
as truly "independent" and capable of meting out sport body
accountability -- any more than its oft-hyped model, the U.S.
Anti-Doping Agency.

Some early returns are positive and others are not.  To its
credit, the center has taken on the complaint of a former
swimmer, Sarah Ehekircher, that USA Swimming's National Board of
Review railroaded her in the 2010 hearing of her complaint
against her coach, Scott MacFarland, who had groomed and abused
her from age 17.  To its discredit, the center is ignoring
Ehekircher's plea for transparency by upholding swimming's bogus
claim that the transcript of the 2010 hearing is unreleasable due
to a unilaterally asserted "confidentiality agreement."

(Taekwondo's Jean Lopez was banned for life by the SafeSport
Center; a complaint against Steven Lopez is pending.)

But whether or not the SafeSport Act -- handiwork of the women's
sports and anti-abuse activist Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a 1984
Olympic swimming champion -- proves all it's cracked up to be,
the salient point is that the USOC had to get on board with
supporting it, so as to demonstrate being in touch with the
problem.  In the process, the Olympic bodies failed to notice an
obscure related consequence: that the act places the bodies under
the jurisdiction of 18 U.S. Code Section 2255, which allows
victims "civil remedy for injuries."

Thank goodness for bureaucratic fumbles in our favor.

Through this opening charged the Gilbert plaintiffs against
taekwondo. Their 132-page complaint is viewable at
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4452842-USOC-USA-
Taekwondo-trafficking-complaint.html.

Even apart from its application to class action, the importance
of the trafficking angle cannot be overstated.  As in the
Catholic Church, Olympic sport abuse crosses national boundaries.
This, in fact, is one of the issue's least understood aspects.
In 2014 my colleague Tim Joyce and I exposed native Brazilian
coach Alex Pussieldi (now a commentator for his country's ESPN-
esque network, SporTV), a blatant human trafficker during the
decade-plus in which he terrorized the swimming programs of South
Florida by importing swimmers from Central and South America and
the Middle East; Pussieldi housed and "warded" many of them, and
peeped on or abused some of them.

Former Irish Olympic swim coach George Gibney also fits the
global abuse theme.  Mr. Gibney wasn't a trafficker, per se, of
athletes he abused.  But he's certainly a two-continent sex
criminal -- someone I call the most notorious at-large abuser in
international sports.  My recently settled Freedom of Information
Act case against the Department of Homeland Security for material
from Gibney's American immigration file (following a ruling in my
favor by U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer) shows that
Gibney has been hiding in plain sight in this country as a
resident alien for nearly a quarter of a century -- and even
since his 2010 citizenship application got rejected because he
lied on it about his 27-count indictment in Ireland in 1993 for
molesting, and in at least one case raping, untold numbers of
swimmers under his supervision.  An Irish politician, Maureen
O'Sullivan, is spearheading a campaign to solicit Senator
Feinstein, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, and other sympathetic
sister legislators to coordinate Irish and U.S. law enforcement
information and facilitate Mr. Gibney's extradition and trial.

The taekwondo plaintiff group is being represented by a team of
attorneys headed by B. Robert Allard of San Jose and Jonathan
Little of Indianapolis.  In 2012 the now-defunct California
Lawyer magazine named Allard one of its lawyers of the year for
his advocacy of abuse victims.  And no one knows more about where
all the bodies are buried than in Olympic sports than Little, who
ran track at Indiana University and was friends with two
prominent swimmers.  One of them, Brooke Taflinger, would file
one of the most important early cases against USA Swimming,
involving Peeping Tom coach Brian Hindson.  The other,
Susan Woessner, is the disgraced former USA Swimming safe sport
director who was recently forced to resign after acknowledging
that she had "kissed" a coach, Sean Hutchison, prior to
investigating him -- and before recent revelations that Hutchison
groomed and abused one of his swimmers, former butterfly world
record holder Ariana Kukors.

In the cliche, sex abuse is about abuse of power, not about sex.
But going forward, it will also be about s something that hits
Olympic potentates where they hurt: commerce.

What might follow human trafficking and class action cases
against the USOC and its satellite bodies? I would suggest RICO
-- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
They've long operated like a virtual mob.  It's past time for the
law to start treating them like the real one. [GN]


UNITED NATURAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannie O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reports that organic
grocery products distributor United Natural Foods Inc. has been
slammed with a putative class action in New Jersey state court
alleging it doesn't pay its Garden State drivers the state-
mandated overtime pay rate of one and a half times their regular
hourly rate.

Truck driver David Valykeo said in a complaint filed on May 8 in
Middlesex County Superior Court that the Providence, Rhode
Island-based company, which is the primary distributor for Whole
Foods, misclassifies its truck drivers as exempt from the
overtime pay. [GN]


UNITED STATES: ICE Violates Immigrants' Rights, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. immigration
authorities violated the rights of two Brazilian illegal
immigrants arrested after they went to government offices to be
interviewed as part of a process to seek legal status, a federal
judge ruled on May 8.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed to release one of
the immigrants, a mother who had been separated from her 11-year-
old son since her arrest over four months ago, following the
ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf in Boston.

The woman, Lucimar de Souza, is among a group of people pursuing
a class action lawsuit contending that President Donald Trump's
administration is improperly detaining illegal immigrants who are
married to U.S. citizens and are seeking to live in the country
legally.

The Republican president has taken a hardline stance on
immigration, both legal and illegal, since taking office in
January 2017.

The judge said ICE failed to meet deadlines requiring it to give
de Souza and another Brazilian who, like her, was in custody for
over 90 days, notice so they could prepare documents for a
custody review process.

"The unlawfully short notice basically prevented her from
presenting evidence in support of her request for release," Judge
Wolf said in court.

ICE did not respond to a request for comment.

Citing other cases, Judge Wolf said he was concerned other
detained immigrants' rights are also being violated.

He called ICE "untrustworthy" and scheduled a hearing for March
15 where immigration officials would be required to testify about
the series of events that led to the detentions of de Souza and
the other Brazilian, Eduardo Junqueira.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, which
represented De Souza, welcomed her release.

Ms. De Souza was arrested at a federal building in Boston on Jan.
30 after an interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) aimed at confirming that her marriage to her
U.S. citizen husband was legitimate.

According to court papers, Ms. De Souza had been going through a
process USCIS adopted during former Democratic President Barack
Obama's administration aimed at encouraging people living
illegally in the country to seek lawful status.

Under regulations enacted in 2016, undocumented spouses of U.S.
citizens could go through a process to seek waivers that would
allow them to largely remain in the United States rather than
leave the country while pursuing permanent residency.

The proposed class action said ICE has been detaining people who
were going through that process.  The ACLU said in January alone,
ICE arrested seven while they were seeking permanent residency at
a Massachusetts or Rhode Island USCIS office. [GN]


UNITED STATES: CBP Faces Class Action Over Civil Forfeiture
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chantal D. Silva, writing for Newsweek, reports that a decade-
long dream to open a medical clinic in southern Nigeria was just
one flight away from coming true for Anthonia Nwaorie.  But the
Texas nurse saw her plan cut short when U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) officials told her they would seize every penny
of the more than $41,000 she had saved to make it happen.

Ms. Nwaorie, a 59-year-old grandmother, was on her way from
Houston to her hometown in southern Nigeria in October 2017 when
she was stopped by a CBP officer.

Ms. Nwaorie immigrated to the U.S. in 1982 and is a citizen; she
told the officer she was carrying the $41,377 she had spent years
saving up to open her clinic.

The only problem? She hadn't gone out of her way to declare that
she was leaving the country with more than $10,000 -- a technical
requirement Ms. Nwaorie said she was never aware of.

As a result, CBP officials seized Ms. Nwaorie's money.  Now she
said the U.S. government is refusing to return it unless she
signs a so-called "hold harmless" agreement promising she will
not sue CBP over the incident and will reimburse the government
for costs it has incurred while enforcing the agreement.  If she
refuses to sign, Ms. Nwaorie said the agency has said it will
claim that she "abandoned" her money and keep it without giving
her a hearing.

Instead, Ms. Nwaorie has decided to take CBP to court, teaming up
with the Institute for Justice to file a federal class action
lawsuit targeting "the abusive practice of civil forfeiture," the
IJ has said.

The lawsuit points out that Ms. Nwaorie was never charged with
any crime and yet, the U.S. attorney's office declined to pursue
civil forfeiture of her money and allowed the 90-day deadline to
file a forfeiture complaint to pass without any action.

The lawsuit argues that CBP's practice of demanding "hold
harmless" agreements in exchange for the return of property is
unlawful and demands that CBP be forced to return seized property
to any class members, including Ms. Nwaorie, whose property has
not been returned because they have refused to sign such an
agreement.

"People shouldn't have their property put in limbo like this,"
Dan Alban, an attorney with IJ, told Newsweek.  "It is perfectly
legal to travel with $10,000. She lawfully earned this money from
her income as a nurse. She had plans to open this clinic in
Nigeria."

Alban said Ms. Nwaorie's money was seized due to "a series of
accusations from people who had already made up their mind that
she was a criminal."

The attorney said he believes there could be hundreds or even
thousands of people who had their money held until they agree to
sign a "hold harmless agreement."

It's a pretty common occurrence," Alban said, adding: "It's a
pretty serious threat, and it's one that nobody should have to
face."

The IJ said the class action lawsuit will "represent Anthonia and
other innocent victims of CBP's unlawful and unconstitutional
requirement that people sign away their rights to get back
property the agency is legally required to return."

IJ Attorney Anya Bidwell said the case should show "how civil
forfeiture is inherently abusive."

"Anthonia was never charged with a crime, and the government
decided not to forfeit her money.  But all these months later,
she's still suffering from a seizure the government acknowledges
should never have happened," Ms. Bidwell said in a statement
shared by the IJ, adding, "Even when the civil forfeiture process
supposedly 'works' as designed, it has disastrous effects on
innocent people."

Ms. Nwaorie has said she refuses to "sign away my rights" to get
her money back and will wait to see how the legal battle plays
out in court.

"The government took my money for no good reason and kept me from
building a medical clinic that can provide healthcare to
vulnerable women and children," Ms. Nwaorie said in a statement
shared by the IJ.

"Now they're demanding that I sign away my rights to get back
what has rightly belonged to me all along. I am an American, and
I will not surrender my rights," she said.

A spokesperson from CBP said the agency could not comment on this
story due to pending litigation.

This story has been updated with comments from Institute for
Justice attorney Dan Alban. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Heninger Garrison Sues USPTO Over AIA
----------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC's class action and
intellectual property group filed a class action complaint
against the United States and the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) for damages to Christy, Inc. and a class
of other patent holders whose property was taken by the USPTO
without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution.

This unlawful "taking" occurred, according to the lawsuit, when
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") invalidated claims
pursuant to the post-grant proceedings created in the America
Invents Act ("AIA"), including Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and
Post-Grant Review ("PGR") proceedings (together, "post-grant
proceedings" or "PGPs"). These PGPs have been used by the USPTO
to invalidate patents at an alarming rate, and Christy, Inc. and
other patent holders seek just compensation for the taking of
patent owners' recognized patent property rights by the United
States. More specifically, the lawsuit seeks money damages for
the value of the patent claims, including any expected royalty
and other payments for use of the patented technologies, the
issuance and maintenance fees paid, and any investments made in
the patented technologies.

The case also seeks damages for the United States' breach of
contract for its failure to maintain in force the subject patent
claims, including the recovery of attorney fees expended
defending those same patents in PGPs. And because the United
States contends these patents were issued "erroneously" by the
USPTO in the first place, Christy, Inc. contends all issue and
maintenance fees paid were exacted by the government and should
be returned.

Any individual or entity that owns a patent for which one or more
claims were invalidated in an IPR or PGR proceeding is eligible
for the class action. If you would like to join this class
action, please contact us to discuss your options.

Case Name:  CHRISTY, INC. V. USA
Case Number:  1:18-cv-00657-MMS [GN]



UNITED STATES: "Johnson" Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Lorena Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The United States, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00525 filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims on
April 10, 2018, seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

United States Postal Service operates as a basic and fundamental
service of the United States government responsible for providing
postal service in the United States where Johnson worked as a
mail carrier out of the US Postal Service's Kensington Station
located in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff regularly worked over
forty hours in most weeks and worked several extra hours after
her scheduled shifts covering the routes of other Mail Carriers,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason T. Brown, Esq.
     Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
     JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
     155 2nd St., Suite 4
     Jersey City, NJ 07302
     Tel: (877) 561-0000
     Fax: (855) 582-5297
     Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
            nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


VOLKSWAGEN: 2MM Diesel Car Owners Could Join Suit in Germany
------------------------------------------------------------
Hans-Edzard Busemann, writing for Reuters, reports that around
two million diesel car owners in Germany could join class action
lawsuits to seek compensation from Volkswagen, Justice Minister
Katarina Barley said on May 9.

The German cabinet approved a draft law on May 9 that paves the
way for class action against the carmaker, which in 2015 admitted
it had used illegal software to cheat U.S. diesel emissions
tests.

The draft law aims to make it easier for people to join a legal
test case, thereby avoiding high costs that might otherwise put
them off bringing legal action.  Only certain associations are
entitled to bring proceedings.

"There are estimates that some two million diesel car owners
could benefit from this legal action," Ms. Barley said.

Owners of cars with illegal software are allowed to claim damages
only until the end of 2018 so Chancellor Angela Merkel's
coalition government wants to ensure the law takes effect on
Nov. 1, 2018 at the latest.

"We are making this type of suit so public now to signal to the
affected diesel drivers that they have a relatively short window
in which to take their claims to court," said Ms. Barley.

Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said: "This is an important
instrument, especially for affected diesel drivers in the
Volkswagen case."

But Volkswagen said the draft law didn't change the fact that it
believes the claims against it in Germany are unjustified, and
that it expects the vast majority of them to be rejected.

Klaus Mueller, head of the federal association of consumer
protection bodies, said the Volkswagen scandal was "only the tip
of the iceberg" and the draft law could help consumers to make
use of their rights in many other areas. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Judge Approves $97.3MM Settlement in Employee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
federal judge approved on May 8 awarding $97.28 million in
damages to plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed against
Wells Fargo & Co. by employees in California.

The amount is nearly four times what Wells Fargo had suggested as
a settlement penalty.

The penalty, at least for now, will not be reduced by paying
attorney fees, which will be addressed separately.

The complaint involves non-exempt employees who served as a home
mortgage consultant, private mortgage banker or in the junior
positions of those roles.

The class-action period was set at March 17, 2013, to Aug. 1,
2017. The 4,481 class-action participants were granted summary
judgment Jan. 19.

The complaint brought by Jacqueline Ibarra involved multiple
claims, all of which were dismissed except for rest-period
violations under California state law. California law requires
that an employee receive at least a 10-minute break for every
four hours worked.

The primary legal dispute with the rest period violations "will
be over how to calculate 'one additional hour at the employees'
regular rate of compensation for each workday that a (rest)
period is not provided.'"

Wells Fargo agreed to pay $24.47 million, going primarily by its
calculations of a combined 1.88 million employee hours at $12 an
hour.

Plaintiffs countered that the settlement amount should include
commissions and other incentive pay, as well as overtime pay. The
$97.28 million total came from those calculations.

Wells Fargo said 961 of the class-action participants should not
have been included because they were not eligible for commissions
or other non-regular pay. Judge Percy Anderson disagreed with
that assessment.

The settlement represents the latest in a series of legal and
regulatory penalties facing the bank since its customer-account
scandal surfaced publicly in September 2016.

Wells Fargo confirmed Aug. 31 that there could be at least 3.53
million accounts affected by its fraudulent customer-accounts
scandal, up from the 2.1 million initially announced. Wells Fargo
has said it cannot rule out that at least 38,722 unauthorized
customer accounts were established in North Carolina and 23,327
in South Carolina.

Retail-bank employees opened accounts for customers who did not
request them, or added non-requested insurance and residential
mortgage services. Those moves garnered Wells Fargo tens of
millions of dollars in fees.

The bank's sales practices have been investigated by the federal
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S. Justice Department,
Securities and Exchanges Commission, U.S. Labor Department and
various state attorneys generals, and in congressional inquiries.

On May 4, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $480 million to resolve a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed by shareholders.
The complaint alleged "certain misstatements and omissions in
Wells Fargo's disclosures related to sales practices matters."

On April 20, the bank was assessed a historic $1 billion penalty
by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the bank's
federal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
To put the $1 billion fine into context, Wells Fargo reported
April 13 a 5.3 percent increase in first-quarter net income to
$5.9 billion.

The bank agreed in July to a $142 million settlement addressing
customer accounts.

The settlement is on top of the $185 million the bank agreed to
pay in September 2016 to resolve regulatory complaints about the
fraudulent accounts, and an additional $80 million in July to
resolve five years' worth of overbilling to about 570,000 auto-
loan customers.

Wells Fargo already has agreed to provide $2.8 million in
additional refunds and credits on top of the $3.3 million
initially committed to people affected.

On Feb. 3, the Federal Reserve, in the last action by then-Chair
Janet Yellen, said Wells Fargo would not be allowed to grow its
total assets beyond the $1.93 trillion it had on Dec. 31, 2017.

The bank initially said those restrictions could lower 2018
profit by $300 million to $400 million.

On May 10, during an investor's day presentation, the bank said
the amount could be less than $100 million because of lower-than-
projected loan and deposits growth.[GN]


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Appeal in Unitholder Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2018, that the plaintiff's appeal in the
Unitholder Litigation remains pending.

Williams said, "On March 7, 2016, a purported unitholder of the
company filed a putative class action on behalf of certain
purchasers of our units in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma. The
action names as defendants the company, Williams, Williams
Partners GP LLC, Alan S. Armstrong, and former Chief Financial
Officer Donald R. Chappel and alleges violations of certain
federal securities laws for failure to disclose Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P.'s intention to pursue a purchase of Williams
conditioned on Williams not closing the May 2015 agreement for a
unit-for-stock transaction whereby Williams would have acquired
all of our publicly held outstanding common units in exchange for
shares of Williams' common stock (WPZ Public Unit Exchange) when
announcing the WPZ Public Unit Exchange."

The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and an award of
costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on August 31, 2016.

On October 17, 2016, the company requested the court dismiss the
action, and on March 8, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint
with prejudice. On April 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

Williams Partners said, "We cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss at this time."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Williams Partners L.P. is an energy infrastructure master limited
partnership focused on connecting North America's significant
hydrocarbon resource plays to growing markets for natural gas and
NGLs through our gas pipeline and midstream businesses. The
company is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


WILLIAMS RUSH: Faces "Tatum" Suit in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Rush
Associates. The case is styled as Britainay Tatum, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Williams Rush Associates and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-cv-00389-A (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2018).

Williams Rush Associates is a debt collection agency in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Jonathan Kandelshein
   18208 Preston Rd, Suite D-9 #256
   Dallas, TX 75252
   Tel: (469) 677-7863
   Fax: (972) 380-8118
   Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com

WPX ENERGY: Suit over Royalty Interests Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a
class action suit involving royalty interests.

In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in
New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against the company in
the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently
alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip
condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of
gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons
in Colorado, breach of implied duty to market, violation of the
New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach
of contract.

Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment
enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future
reporting.

This matter was removed to the United States District Court for
New Mexico where the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In March 2017, plaintiffs appealed the denial of
class certification to the Tenth Circuit and oral argument before
the Tenth Circuit was held on January 17, 2018.

In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
the company in the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and
Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty
to market both in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the
New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory
judgment, accounting and injunctive relief.

On August 16, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their
motion for reconsideration and filed a second motion for class
certification, and on September 30, 2017, the Court issued its
memorandum opinion and order denying the plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration and their Second Motion for Class Certification.

WPX Energy said, "At this time, we believe that our royalty
calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the
appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do
not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range
of exposure related to these claims."


* Germany's Cabinet Approves Plan to Allow Consumer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Germany's Cabinet has approved
plans to allow a form of class-action suit by consumers, an idea
that was prompted in part by automaker Volkswagen's diesel
emissions-cheating scandal.

The Justice Ministry said on May 9 that the new rules will take
effect Nov. 1.  They will entitle consumer associations to seek
redress from a company on consumers' behalf, without individuals
having to file their own complaints to a court.

At least 10 consumers will be required for associations to take
up a case, and a court will consider the complaint if at least 50
join up within two months.

The ministry says the rules will ensure that complaints are in
the consumers' interest and "cannot be abused to deliberately
damage companies." [GN]





                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A.
Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche
Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G.
Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2018.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *